Unpopular Sports Opinions

[chcarlson23]

5 hours ago, The Six said:

The draft in every sport should be eliminated. All eligible players should just be free agents. Let workers choose where they want to work. 

I get the idea behind this, but it would be extremely unfair to smaller markets, and would be a nightmare for baseball and hockey, which have deeper development processes. 

 

No one would ever want to play for teams like the Arizona Coyotes, Sacramento Kings, San Diego Los Angeles Chargers, and so on. I mean things like the Cubs winning it all, would have never happened, because players wouldn't have wanted to play for a team that lost all the time. They would avoid it like the plague. I mean players would generally only follow the teams that are great. I mean could you imagine if a player like Connor McDavid or Auston Matthews went to go play for a team like the Penguins or the Hawks? Leagues would be super unbalanced... Sure you could argue that the players would only go where they could sign, but that might also mean that you would have lower end players playing for a terrible team. Like players who normally wouldn't have a shot at the pros. Like beer-leaguers who want to still make the NHL, who will go and try out for the Coyotes, being the only players who would want to play there...

[DustDevil61]

Here are some thoughts of mine, snipping the quotes to keep the post a little more streamlined.

 

On 9/10/2018 at 11:28 PM, OnWis97 said:

• Football:
  • I like college pass interference better than NFL.  Spot fouls 40 yards down field allow for bad or ticky-tack calls to be very important and pass interference becomes a huge part of the game. 
  • I don't like any neutral-site college games (aside from bowl games).  Florida/Georgia and Texas/Oklahoma should be played on campus; not somewhere in between.  I recall when Wisconsin played LSU at Lambeau. It would have been awesome for LSU to come to Camp Randall. 
• Baseball:
  • I don't like the automatic intentional walk.
  • I hate the DH.
  • I don't like the frequency of the contrived interleague rivalry matchups (NY/NY, SF/OAK, MIN/MIL, etc.) and wish the interleague schedule was handled more like the NFC/AFC schedule, so the "rivalries" became more special and rare and the schedule had more integrity.
• Hockey:
  • I don't really like the idea of "the players policing themselves." 
• Basketball:
  • I'm not sure I'm all-in on the little half-circle under the hoop. 

 

On 9/11/2018 at 8:13 AM, DG_Now said:

This is a fun topic!

 

- Multi-use stadiums are good. Ugly, but good because they are an efficient use of public resources. We never should have gone away from them. And if a stadium can't host more than 10 events per year (looking at you FedEx Field), it shouldn't exist. If you can't fill your stadium at least twice a month, you shouldn't have one.

 

- The Cleveland Browns deal and similar franchise history swaps are fine. It's just sports.

 

- Professional sports should allow marijuana use.

 

On 9/11/2018 at 5:45 AM, Olmec said:

Baseball:

• PEDs should be legal
• Pete Rose should be allowed in the HOF
• DH in both leagues

Football:

• An NFL catch should be one foot inbounds

 

Football

- NCAA's pass interference is 1000x better than the NFL's. There have been too many times where an offense is bailed out and a game's flow completely changed by a ticky-tack PI call. I could maybe tolerate a spot foul if it's especially flagrant, but otherwise, 15 yards is enough for your average PI. While we're at it, let's also get rid of automatic first downs except in only the most flagrant situations? No need to issue an automatic first down when it's only a 5-yard penalty. (I guess the general rule of thumb is "No moving the chain backward unless in the most extreme cases.")

- Agreed. An NFL catch should be just one foot inbounds as well...it's more natural to land on one foot than to try to bring down both. If someone jumps a gap and lands safely but with just one foot on the other side, do we not say that they've landed and push them back over the edge? (OK, kinda rubbish analogy, but the number of rules designating what is and isn't a catch needs to be trimmed.)

 

Baseball

- I think I like @OnWis97's approach to Interleague the best. Under the current Interleague format, we don't need to force the Yankees and Mets, Cubs and White Sox, Dodgers and Angels, A's and Giants, and so forth to play regional rivals every single year. That said, I think I'm a little more open to Interleague than most on these boards and would actually like see every team play every other team in at least a two-game series in a given season. I feel that this can be accomplished even trimming back the MLB schedule from 162 games per year to, say, 150-155ish games. Also, I really like the idea that someone (I think it was ESPN's Michael Wilbon) suggest that the rules should be based on the road team's league. This would give the home fans just a taste of the other league's brand of baseball. Speaking of which...

- I think that the DH rule should remain the way it is between the AL and NL.

- I understand the need to let the intentional walk be played out, but this is one situation where I side more with making some tweaks to speed up the game, especially if the end result is the same.

- Pete Rose should be reinstated. Betting on games, while certainly not admirable even if you're not throwing games, is a far lesser issue and a far less slippery slope than legalized PEDs. (Sorry, I just can't get behind the use of PEDs.)

 

Basketball

- I'm also not a fan of the restricted area. It comes across as a ploy that allows more wiggle room for superstar calls.

 

Hockey

- I think there should be less of an emphasis on players to police themselves, but I don't think it needs to be outright eliminated from the sport.

- Not sure if it's unpopular or not, but I prefer white jerseys at home.

 

Soccer

- I've never been to a game in person, but I've lived within earshot of a stadium (both in England and now near where Real Salt Lake plays), and seen games on TV. I love soccer culture, what with team chants, team songs, fan club banners, etc and wished that elements of that would be ported (where reasonable) to North American Big 4 leagues and fanbases.

 

 

Uniform/Stadium/Business/Franchise (AKA General)

- Teams should go with an approach more akin to soccer (minus the "let's change every single year) with white, color, and a couple of clash sets with less of an emphasis on what is primary and secondary. Note that I did not say anything about reducing the emphasis on home and road, as the NBA has pretty much thrown that out under Nike, and it is a mess. I'd prefer having the average NBA and NHL team having 4 jersey options--Regular Home (Generally White), Alternate Home (Lighter color, like Yellow, Light Blue, Orange, etc.), Regular Road (Primary team color), and Alternate Road (Secondary darker team color). Obviously, teams like the Detroit Red Wings and New York Yankees can stick to the regular Home and Road that they have most year through their histories, but I think you get the gist. 

- I'm OK with the "Cleveland Deal" right up to the point where actual franchise continuity is muddied. Sport team names, colors, uniforms, records, etc. are but a title that can be bestowed upon multiple organizations/entities/people/etc., not unlike Caesar or Donkey Kong, but let's not forget the franchise continuity. The Baltimore Ravens franchise is the original Cleveland Browns franchise that was forced to give up its title when it left Cleveland after the 1995 NFL season while the current Browns franchise took upon itself the Cleveland Browns title when it began operations in 1999.

- I wouldn't mind multi-use stadiums if they are given some aspect of character...that said, a small part of me will be sad when the Raiders are no longer playing on a combined baseball/football stadium.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

9 hours ago, chcarlson23 said:

15 hours ago, The Six said:

The draft in every sport should be eliminated. All eligible players should just be free agents. Let workers choose where they want to work. 

 

I get the idea behind this, but it would be extremely unfair to smaller markets, and would be a nightmare for baseball and hockey, which have deeper development processes. 

 

No one would ever want to play for teams like the Arizona Coyotes, Sacramento Kings, San Diego Los Angeles Chargers, and so on. I mean things like the Cubs winning it all, would have never happened, because players wouldn't have wanted to play for a team that lost all the time.

 

So then these teams in smaller cities would have to do what all other companies located in these areas do: pay more in order to lure people to work there.  That need would be built into the cost of running the franchise.

Also, while I as an arrogant New Yorker am an unapologetic supporter of big cities, there are in fact people who think differently to me on this question.  Plenty of people would prefer to work and live in a smaller city.

In addition, once the big-market teams signed lots of players, that would create better opportunity on other teams.  In the early 1930s, Hank Greenberg, a native New Yorker, chose not to sign with the Yankees and opted to sign with the Detroit Tigers instead because the Yankees had Lou Gehrig at first base, and Greenberg knew that he'd have a better chance to play if he signed with Detroit.  This dynamic would play out constantly, and would offset the built-in advantage that the prestige teams have.

 

So the lack of a draft is entirely workable in real life.  A draft is just a scheme to depress players' earning power.  It should be considered illegal collusion.

[TrueYankee26]

I am pro-DH in the NL (unpopular among old school baseball fans, and a lot of NL fans).

[waltere]

On 9/13/2018 at 10:14 AM, DustDevil61 said:

but I've lived within earshot of a stadium (both in England and now near where Real Salt Lake plays)

Which stadium in England was it, if I may ask?

[JayMac]

On 9/12/2018 at 12:52 PM, DScruggy729 said:

In General: 

-Teams should pay for their own stadiums. No more threatening cities into using taxpayer money for their personal gain. 

 

NFL: 

-I’d like to stop seeing non-stop promotion of Fantasy Football. It is sad and pathetic to have programming dedicated to fantasy football. 

-An additional bye week should be added to the NFL season to allow for additional rest for players. 

-Thursday Night Football should be cut back. It should be allowed on opening night, Thanksgiving, and in December and only then. Teams should also get a bye week before playing a Thursday night game. 

-Any team playing a game in Europe should get a bye week before they travel. 

-West Coast teams shouldn’t be forced to play 1 PM games on the East Coast and vice versa. 

-Pass interference should not be a spot foul. 

-Calls by the referee should be made reviewable. 

-Intentional grounding should be re-worked. The QB shouldn’t be allowed to throw the ball out of bounds or incomplete just to avoid a sack. 

 

NBA: 

-Regular season should be cut to 66 games. 

 

NCAA Football: 

-No conference should have more than 12 teams. 

-Color vs. Color matchups should be allowed as long as colors don’t conflict. 

 

-NCAA Basketball: 

-Players should be required to either play college basketball for 3 years or declare for the draft after high school. 

-Conference tournaments should be abolished. Regular season champs would recieve automatic bids instead of conference tournament champs. 

-NCAA Tournament should expand to 72 teams. 

-Automatic qualifiers shouldn’t be allowed to play play-in games. 

 

Soccer: 

-International breaks should be scrapped, International teams should play matches from June to August uninterrupted. 

-There should be a 2 week winter break in all major european leagues, and additional 2 week breaks between the end of club season and the start of international season (May) and the end of International season and the start of club season (August). 

-Leagues should establish salary caps and limits on transfer spending to help the leagues become more competitive. 

 

I’ll probably think of more later. 

 

I don't think any of your opinions are unpopular, at least with me.

[ShutUpLutz!]

Not going to quote other's posts, because, well just because.

 

First off, the reinstatement and enshrinement of Pete Rose to baseball and the HOF. 

 

NO.

 

Not now.

 

Not tomorrow.

 

Not next week.

 

Not next month.

 

Not next year.

 

Not next decade.

 

Not EVER.

 

NEVER.

 

Pete Rose and all those who whinge and blub and shriek and bleat about how unfairly he has been treated and how he has 'suffered' for too long and must now be forgiven and welcomed back with a huge parade and cake and hugs and kisses and a big sash and robe and crown can all pound sand.

 

Pete Rose repeatedly, thousands of times, willfully and knowingly broke the ONE RULE, the ONLY RULE that is posted in EVERY major and minor league clubhouse in the United States. He passed by it multiple times EVERY DAY. And he willfully ignored it because to quote the man himself, "Well, I'm Pete Rose. I've got the most hits in baseball history." Actually you don't, that record belongs to Ichiro.

 

Pete Rose LIED to EVERYONE.

 

Pete Rose lied to his fellow teammates.

 

Pete Rose lied to the players he managed.

 

Pete Rose lied to the fans including that asshat who dressed up as Uncle Sam and stood outside the courthouse where Pete was in trial holding a sign that read: THE AMERICAN!!!! PEOPLE DECLARE!!!! PETE IS INNOCENT!!!!

 

Pete Rose lied repeatedly for nearly 15 years to 3 different commissioners of baseball, Bart Giamatti, Faye Vincent and Bud Selig.

 

Pete Rose repeatedly and still refers to Faye Vincent as "that cripple."

 

Pete Rose STILL bets on baseball.

 

Pete Rose makes his living working in a casino.

 

Faye Vincent, Bud Selig and Rob Manfred have said for nearly 20 years that if Rose wants to be reinstated he needs to 'reconfigure his life' which he has shown ZERO inlcination or desire to do, Pete Rose thinks he doesn't and shouldn't have to because, "I'm Pete Rose and have the most hits in baseball history."

 

Pete Rose has NEVER apologized to the public for lying to them for over 15 years. I'm talking a sincere break down and start sobbing at the microphone and admitting what a scumclown adulterous dirtbag he truly is.

 

But hey Trump lies his ass off and he got elected President.

 

As for multi use stadiums being a thing of the past, actually a number of mlb stadiums including AT&T Park, the new Yankee Stadium and Marlins Park have all hosted bowl or college football games.

 

 

[Cosmic]

1 hour ago, ShutUpLutz! said:

Pete Rose STILL bets on baseball.

 

Pete Rose makes his living working in a casino.

Don't see what's wrong with either of these two things.

 

Since a "ban" in baseball is often a temporary thing anyway, and Wikipedia's list of people banned (even temporarily) for performance-enhancing drugs seems awkwardly short, I don't see why Pete Rose can't be reinstated after 30 years.

[Wings]

He'll be reinstated and enshrined in Cooperstown after he's dead to avoid awkward and embarrassing speeches. 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

23 hours ago, ShutUpLutz! said:

First off, the reinstatement and enshrinement of Pete Rose to baseball and the HOF.  NO.

 

That is by no means an unpopular opinion.  Sadly, it is the prevailing view.

Look, no one denies that Rose knowingly broke a rule, and that he had to be punished for this.  But the punishment should not last his entire lifetime.

On the level of morals rather than that of techincal rule-breaking, the fact that Rose never bet against his team is highly significant (notwithstanding the embarassing sophistry that has been offered in an effort to erase this important fact). This means that he never compromised his team's chance to win.  It does not justify his betting, of course; but it mitigates the offence to one which should have some defined period of punishment that ends at certain point.

I like to compare Rose to another manager: Billy Martin.  While no one has accused Martin of betting on baseball, he certainly compromised his team's ability to win on any number of occasions.  The most famous event in Billy's career was his refusal to bat Reggie Jackson fourth in the first half of the 1977 season, on account of Billy's resentment about a new arrival getting so much attention.  Day after day, Billy hurt the team by writing out lineups that were not the best they could have been, simply out of spite. And when his two most trusted players, Thurman Munson and Lou Piniella, went to him privately to implore him to relent on this, what did Billy do?  Did he give the counsel of his wisest and most level-headed players the consideration it deserved?  No; he angrily snapped at them: "So you c*ck-s*ckers are against me, too!"
 

On one occasion Billy posted a lineup with a pitcher in the DH spot.  This was his clever way of sending a message to Steinbrenner that he needed hitting help. The pitcher acquitted himself decently, driving in a run with a sacrifice fly; and the Yankees won that game.  But there is no justification for giving a pitcher a start at DH in the middle of a pennant race.  No matter how scant the bench might have been, Billy surely had players who were more qualified to DH than a pitcher was.

 

On another occasion, Billy accidentally gave the steal sign while trying to flirt with a woman in the stands.  The runner (I believe it was Mike Pagliarulo, but I could be mistaken) was thrown out by a mile.

 

There were also the many occasions when Billy refused to use players because of personal grudges.  This included Ken Holtzman (whom he referred to as "the kike"), Larry Gura, and Billy Sample. In 1978 Billy was developing this kind of relationship with Goose Gossage after he ordered the Goose to throw at a hitter and the Goose refused.  Fortunately for the Yankees, Billy saved the 1978 season by getting himself fired after a drunken night in a bar.

Those drunken nights were the norm for Billy.  In the recent documentary on Billy that aired on the MLB Network, Ron Guidry admitted that Billy often slept off his benders in the dugout; Guidry said that if Billy was wearing shades, then he was asleep.  (And this was in a show that was largely lauditory!)  Billy was a manager who, despite his natural brilliance, was habitually operating in a state of impairment; and who, even when not impaired, frequently elected to put other interests ahead of the interest of his team.

You might ask: what does this have to do with Pete Rose?  For me it has everything to do with him.  When we think of people who digraced the game of baseball, Pete Rose is not nearly as big an offender as Billy Martin, whose transgressions people are now likely to overlook or perhaps even to chuckle about. Rose broke a rule; and he lost his job for it.  Rightfully so.  But he never once hurt his team or disgraced the uniform the way that Billy Martin did on a consistent and ongoing basis.  For his misbehaviour Rose has paid the price, and then some.  He deserves to be restored to full citizenship within the game, and to be enshrined in the Hall of Fame while he is still alive, in keeping with his accomplishments as a dominant and inspirational player and a fierce competitor.  

 

 

P.S. - Don't even try it with that Ichiro nonsense.  Every league apart from the AL and NL (and the historic leagues the American Association, the Union Association, the Federal League, and the Players' League) is a minor league, even if it is the top league in another country such as Japan or Mexico.  And hits obtained in a minor league do not count in a Major League hit total.  The hit king is, and probably always will be, Pete Rose. (Unless somebody wants to check on Razor Shines's record with Indianapolis.)
 

[DrAwesomeberry]

I really don't give a  if Pete Rose is in the Hall of Fame or not, and I don't think he really cares either. His "punishment" for gambling is that he can't work for a baseball team and he doesn't have a plaque with his name on it at a museum in upstate New York. It's not like he's in baseball jail or something.

 

I just don't care that much about awards or Halls of Fame. The best players are still going to be the best players, regardless of if a group of writers vote for them or not.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

7 minutes ago, DrAwesomeberry said:

I really don't give a  if Pete Rose is in the Hall of Fame or not, and I don't think he really cares either.

 

You're certainly entitled to not care about this.  But you are mistaken if you think that Rose himself doesn't care.

Any serious baseball fan will regard Rose as one of the best.  But the official recognition by the baseball establishment, and the plaque in Cooperstown alongside Ty Cobb's, these are exceedingly important to Rose.  To deny him at age 77 this honour that he earned with his excellent play is just sadistic.

[Sport]

21 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

On the level of morals rather than that of techincal rule-breaking, the fact that Rose never bet against his team is highly significant (notwithstanding the embarassing sophistry that has been offered in an effort to erase this important fact). This means that he never compromised his team's chance to win.  It does not justify his betting, of course; but it mitigates the offence to one which should have some defined period of punishment that ends at certain point.
 

 

Not true. Betting on the Reds to win some games still introduced unnatural influence on the outcomes in games where he didn't place a wager. It's a problem even if he never deliberately threw his own team's games. 

 

Also, he knew the rule the entire time and still broke it many times. I fail to see what Billy Martin has to do with Pete Rose betting on baseball. 

 

Just now, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

You're certainly entitled to not care about this.  But you are mistaken if you think that Rose himself doesn't care.

Any serious baseball fan will regard Rose as one of the best.  But the official recognition by the baseball establishment, and the plaque in Cooperstown alongside Ty Cobb's, these are exceedingly important to Rose.  To deny him at age 77 this honour that he earned with his excellent play is just sadistic.

They gave him a statue outside of Great American Ballpark (which is an absolute disgrace, if you ask me). He's gotten plenty of recognition for being good at baseball 40 damn years ago. In all other facets of life he's not someone who should be celebrated. 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

33 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

1 hour ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

On the level of morals rather than that of techincal rule-breaking, the fact that Rose never bet against his team is highly significant (notwithstanding the embarassing sophistry that has been offered in an effort to erase this important fact). This means that he never compromised his team's chance to win.  It does not justify his betting, of course; but it mitigates the offence to one which should have some defined period of punishment that ends at certain point.

 

Not true. Betting on the Reds to win some games still introduced unnatural influence on the outcomes in games where he didn't place a wager. It's a problem even if he never deliberately threw his own team's games. 

 

This is precisely what I meant by sophistry.  

We need to acknonwledge that everyone will favour some games over others.  Maybe you're in your hometown; maybe someone special is in attendance; maybe you're facing an opponent whom you especially strongly want to beat; whatever.  But this doesn't mean that you aren't trying in the other games. 

An analogy can be made to umpiring crews.  In the post-season there are six umpires on the field.  This does not mean that baseball is not trying to get the calls right during regular-season games, when there are four umpires.  Likewise, the presence of an added incentive in some games in no way implies a lack of trying during the other games.

 

 

33 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

I fail to see what Billy Martin has to do with Pete Rose betting on baseball. 

The comparison is that Martin did far worse, even though he didn't break the rule on betting.  He abdicated his responsibility to his team, whereas Rose did not.  The purpose of mentioning that is to put Rose in his proper context.

 

 

33 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

They gave him a statue outside of Great American Ballpark (which is an absolute disgrace, if you ask me).

 

I say that that's the absolute minimum for such an electrifying player who helped define a generation.

 

 

33 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

He's gotten plenty of recognition for being good at baseball 40 damn years ago.

 

Except the most important and meaningful bit of recognition.

 

 

33 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

In all other facets of life he's not someone who should be celebrated. 

 

We don't worry about the personal life of Ruth, who used plenty of drugs and who participated in orgies (neither of which I have any problem with, I hasten to add; but the squares who run the Hall of Fame would not approve).  Neither do we worry about the private life of DiMaggio, who committed acts of violence against his wife.  People know about the many misdeeds of Ty Cobb (recent ahistorical attempts to rehabilitate him notwithstanding); but no one thinks that he or any of the other great players should be denied recognition as ballplayers on account of off-the-field bad behaviour.

Rose's Hall of Fame plaque should state that he admitted to betting on baseball.  But he should absolutely have a plaque in recognition of his remarkable playing career.  A baseball hall of fame that ignores one of baseball's best players is an absurdity.  Let the punishment fit the crime; to persist in this ban after multiple decades is simply unconscionable.

[Red Wolf]

On 9/13/2018 at 10:47 AM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

In addition, once the big-market teams signed lots of players, that would create better opportunity on other teams.  In the early 1930s, Hank Greenberg, a native New Yorker, chose not to sign with the Yankees and opted to sign with the Detroit Tigers instead because the Yankees had Lou Gehrig at first base, and Greenberg knew that he'd have a better chance to play if he signed with Detroit.  This dynamic would play out constantly, and would offset the built-in advantage that the prestige teams have.

Once the rich have feasted, then the poor may have the scraps? I thought you were a dirty commie, not a dirty libertarian. 

 

On 9/13/2018 at 10:49 AM, TrueYankee26 said:

I am pro-DH in the NL (unpopular among old school baseball fans, and a lot of NL fans).

Yes, please! The DH needs to come to the National League.

[Sport]

2 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

This is precisely what I meant by sophistry.  

We need to acknonwledge that everyone will favour some games over others.  Maybe you're in your hometown; maybe someone special is in attendance; maybe you're facing an opponent whom you especially strongly want to beat; whatever.  But this doesn't mean that you aren't trying in the other games. 

An analogy can be made to umpiring crews.  In the post-season there are six umpires on the field.  This does not mean that baseball is not trying to get the calls right during regular-season games, when there are four umpires.  Likewise, the presence of an added incentive in some games in no way implies a lack of trying during the other games.

 

 

Talk about sophistry - Gambling on a game is not the same as, say, starting the backup catcher because the regular guy needs an off-day. All of what you mentioned were still regular every day aspects of a baseball season for Rose's Reds teams PLUS the added element of betting on games. It's not that he wasn't trying in other games, it's that he couldn't because he unnaturally expended his roster in games he had money on. He made decisions he wouldn't have made in a normal game. 

 

Also, the rule is don't bet on baseball! It couldn't have been more clear. 

 

2 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

The comparison is that Martin did far worse, even though he didn't break the rule on betting.  He abdicated his responsibility to his team, whereas Rose did not.  The purpose of mentioning that is to put Rose in his proper context.

 

If I murder a guy and someone else murders 3 guys, I still murdered a guy. 

 

The proper context is Rose broke a rule that was as clear as any in the game. Nobody forced him to do that. And yes, by breaking said rule he broke his responsibility to his team. Billy Martin's transgressions have nothing to do with Pete Rose's.

 

2 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

I say that that's the absolute minimum for such an electrifying player who helped define a generation.

 

Fewer players have statues than hall of fame plaques. Here's what he is - a statutory rapist, criminal, and ego-maniacal manchild who was good at baseball a long time ago. That's not something I want outside my team's stadium and I haven't spent any time looking at the thing since it went up. He's been nothing but an embarrassment for the franchise since he stopped playing. I'd rather he have a plaque in Cooperstown than a statue outside the ballpark. 

 

2 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Except the most important and meaningful one.

 

 

Good. 

 

2 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

We don't worry about the personal life of Ruth, who used plenty of drugs and who participated in orgies (neither of which I have any problem with, I hasten to add; but the squares who run the Hall of Fame would not approve).  Neither do we worry about the private life of DiMaggio, who committed acts of violence against his wife.  People know about the many misdeeds of Ty Cobb (recent ahistorical attempts to rehabilitate him notwithstanding); but no one thinks that he or any of the other great players should be denied recognition as ballplayers on account of off-the-field bad behaviour.

Rose's Hall of Fame plaque should state that he admitted to betting on baseball.  But he should absolutely have a plaque in recognition of his remarkable playing career.  A baseball hall of fame that ignores one of baseball's best players is an absurdity.  Let the punishment fit the crime; to persist in this ban after multiple decades is simply unconscionable.

 

I don't think the private lives of baseball players should affect their candidacy for the hall of fame either, but Rose's personal gambling habit was detrimental to baseball and none of those specified players broke THE rule. The punishment does fit the crime. Now, all things considered, he might've had a shot at getting reinstated if he'd proven himself to be an upstanding citizen who made one mistake, but his behavior off the field hasn't earned him the benefit of the doubt. If you're gonna break that rule you'd better be a model citizen if you ever hope to get back in and he's been nothing of the sort. 

[OnWis97]

Here's some more sophistry...

 

I'm a manager.  I decide that simply winning ballgames does not get my competitive juices flowing enough, so I want also to gamble on them.  Now, I want to win, so I would never bet against my team.  I am going to try to win.  162 times per year.  Hopefully more.  So I'm going to be on my own team.  Jones is hurt.  Everyone knows it.  We truthfully told the media he'll be back in ten days but he's progressing really fast.  I'll bet on my team for their game on Day 6.  And guess what?  Late addition of Jones to the lineup...a little insider knowledge to help improve my chances at putting $750 in my pocket.  (Alternatively, maybe the extra money on the game causes me to rush Jones back, he comes up lame running out a grounder, and now he's out for the year).  

 

Given the usual sophistry (The days you don't bet on you're team you're kinda betting against them), the possibility to use your insider knowledge, and the potential to sacrifice other parts of your team to win a bet, tolerance for gambling is at best bad PR, but given human nature, you're probably opening it up to actual consequences, intended or otherwise.  That's why it's worse than cocaine, steroids, womanizing, cork, scuffing balls, long pant legs, logo creep, and stealing signals, combined.  Allowing anything is a step toward gamblers turning into the WWE. And given that, forgiving it has to be done (if at all) with incredible care.  

 

For most of this never-ending saga, my opinion has been that he should be in the HOF (with no need for some asterisk on the plaque).  But banned from holding jobs in baseball.  I started to relent at some point, thinking it had been long enough.  But one person convinced me otherwise. That person?  Pete Rose.  He has not been contrite or even particularly willing to acknowledge that what he did was wrong.  Is that a guy we want roaming the halls of an MLB team with pretty exclusive access to information?  I think the lifetime ban from working in baseball is appropriate, even if you have to sacrifice a great like Pete Rose.  You don't want to flirt with gambling bringing an entire league down.

 

And to get even more nuanced...does it matter that he be only on his team?  Yes and no.  Yes, in that it's lower in terms of degree  of bad than if he'd bet against his team.  That would be worse, at least on a practical, common-sense level. But no in that "no gambling" is vital to the survival of the game.  In that sense, it doesn't really matter how he bet; only that he bet.  

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

48 minutes ago, Red Wolf said:

On 9/13/2018 at 11:47 AM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

In addition, once the big-market teams signed lots of players, that would create better opportunity on other teams.  In the early 1930s, Hank Greenberg, a native New Yorker, chose not to sign with the Yankees and opted to sign with the Detroit Tigers instead because the Yankees had Lou Gehrig at first base, and Greenberg knew that he'd have a better chance to play if he signed with Detroit.  This dynamic would play out constantly, and would offset the built-in advantage that the prestige teams have.

Once the rich have feasted, then the poor may have the scraps? I thought you were a dirty commie, not a dirty libertarian. 

 

Well played.  While I am generally not a defender of markets as a means of distributing goods and services in society, I am indeed an advocate of a market as the means of determining where the members of this class of workers find employment. 

Please realise that scouting is not an exact science.  No one can predict for sure which players are going to become great.  History is littered with first-round draft picks who became busts, and with big stars who had been unheralded. 

Furthermore, there are only so many slots on any team.  The prestige teams cannot possibly lock up all the worthy talent.  Even if we assume that every player would prefer to play in New York or Los Angeles as opposed to Pittsburgh or Cleveland (an assumption that is patently false), the Pittsburghs and Clevelands of the world would still have ample chance to stock their teams not with "scraps" but with championship-calibre players.
 

[IceCap]

Pete Rose broke baseball’s #1 rule. The rule posted in every clubhouse in the Majors. He lied about it, and every new revelation that comes out paints him as a worse person. 

 

The lifetime ban is warranted, in my opinion. 

[SFGiants58]

2 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

Pete Rose broke baseball’s #1 rule. The rule posted in every clubhouse in the Majors. He lied about it, and every new revelation that comes out paints him as a worse person. 

 

The lifetime ban is warranted, in my opinion. 

 

It’s the statutory rape part that makes me anti-Rose. One sex crime like that, and you’re out for good. Of course, proof of innocence would be cause for reinstatement.