24 MLB Season Thread

[Sport]

I have nothing nice to say about Pete Rose. 

[BBTV]

Pete was my hero growing up.  I was too young to see his WS runs with the Phillies, but hearing all the stories was enough for me.  It blew mind that he was a player manager, and I collected as many of his cards as I possibly could.  Begged my dad to take me to a game to see him live before he retired, but it never happened until he was just a manager.

 

I think the betting thing was awful and warranted the ban, but it didn't cross a line for me in terms of being a bad human.  Just someone with a problem and poor judgement.  Butttttt... when his affair with the 16-year old came to light, when he came back to Philly a few years ago and made fun of John Kruk's one nut (he lost one due to cancer), insulted and degraded the Inquirer's beat writer who is a female, and then went on live TV to tell a story about (I think) Tony Perez hitting a ":censored:-high fastball" and other curses until they kicked him out, that was it.

 

I'm glad we live in an era where things get exposed and victims can be defended and bad guys shunned and maybe even serve punishment, but the little boy in me wishes that we lived in simpler times where I could still love him for what he did for the Phillies, how he played the game, and his hit record.

 

Oh well.  He dead.

 

 

 

 

 

(not shown was that he called her "babe" or something else derogatory, and there was some stuff after this clip.)

 

 

 

 

 

[BBTV]

Anyway, I learned long ago to never root for one team or another in games that determine who your team plays in the playoffs.  Just let it play out, because when you wish for something, it typically bites you.

 

I can't say I'm feeling good about the Phillies playing either Milwaukee or the Mets.  They swept each team earlier in the year, but struggled closer to the end.  Either could certainly beat the Phillies, especially since Ranger Suarez is now unpitchable, Aaron Nola is a 4-inning "ace", their bullpen has some super strong high-leverage guys, but have all but lost Jose Alvarado, have jabroni-ass jabroni Carlos Estevez, and their long guys are below average.

 

Not optimistic at all about them advancing.  

[Sec19Row53]

3 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

Let’s not forget that Pete Rose transported a minor across state lines for sexual purposes. That should be enough to keep him out.

Nope. That's got absolutely nothing to do with it. I know it does in your HOF, but not in the one in Cooperstown.

[FrutigerAero]

I know it's a three-game series and anything could happen, but I think the Braves are toast against the Padres.

[pmoehrin]

The thing most people misinterpret about Rose not being in the Hall of Fame is that he's not in the Hall of Fame because he bet on baseball.

 

Major League Baseball told him in the summer of '89 of their initial findings (the then unpublished Dowd Report) and offered Rose a deal that would have seen him suspended for a year but given a path to return after said year was up, as there was no reason to suspect that his betting was having any impact on the outcome of games, which is the primary intent of the rule.

 

Rose declined the offer. So MLB went public with the report and thus began a two-month process of negotiations back and forth between the two camps over what the punishment for it would be. Rose did have the legal right to sue MLB over any suspension handed out, as there was nothing binding about the Dowd Report. It would have to be proven in a court of law. And as damning as the report was, that was not a slam dunk.

 

Finally, Rose was offered what he thought was a sweetheart deal. Admit no wrongdoing in exchange for a year's suspension, with the commissioner having sole discretion over whether or not Rose could be reinstated after said year was up. He truly believed that this was a better deal than what MLB had first offered him and that his staunch refusal to admit to doing anything wrong had paid off.

 

Officially speaking, Pete Rose elected to be voluntarily suspended for no reason at all. But we all know there was a lot more to it than that. And Bart Giamatti made it very clear at that now famous press conference that hell would freeze over before he would allow Rose to be reinstated.

 

Rose was banking on a PR battle, not expecting a commissioner to essentially say, "I could give a rat's ass what the public or anyone thinks. It's my and only my call to make." To that, he had no answer. And when Giamatti died a few weeks later, any hope Rose ever had of being reinstated died with him because it's the only thing Giamatti ever did as commissioner that still resonates to this day. And none of his replacements will ever erase his one piece of legacy.

 

Rose, for his part, IMO never showed any remorse for his actions. Never tried to correct the behavior that led to it in the first place. The one time I met him in Vegas during an autograph signing he was watching some random tennis match in Spain between two borderline top 25 players. He clearly didn't give a damn over what kept him out, so I don't know why I or anyone should be expected to give a damn about his HOF case?

 

When he finally came clean, he tried to profit from it via a tell-all book. Did he apologize for that or try to use the money for a good cause? No. He pocketed it. Why shouldn't you be allowed to charge people for reading what is essentially a confession letter?

 

As a ballplayer, I have nothing negative to say about him. I don't know if any other player in history exerted more on-field effort to play the game than Pete Rose.

 

As a person? I'll leave that for a higher power to judge.

[Digby]

The thing with the gambling angle is that now that you can't really make that case considering you can't go 60 seconds watching anything MLB-related without also seeing an advertisement for a betting app. 

[SFGiants58]

The unfortunate mainstreaming of gambling is a big reason why his misdeeds with children surfaced. Well, that and other cultural trends in regard to that type of miscreancy. Let Metalocalypse explain:

 

He was also just a deeply unpleasant man.

[TrueYankee26]

 

[The_Admiral]

That Rose was a deeply unpleasant man isn't something I like, but I don't think it's a disqualifying offense. The fact that he delegitimized games by betting on their outcomes is. It's not wrestling, you gotta believe it's real. If someone is betting on the games, you can't. The end. 

 

And yeah, I know gambling ads are pervasive. I hate gambling, I hate the modern ease and ubiquity of gambling, and I take eye-roll reacts whenever I express that. Players and managers still can't bet on games.

[Sec19Row53]

55 minutes ago, Digby said:

The thing with the gambling angle is that now that you can't really make that case considering you can't go 60 seconds watching anything MLB-related without also seeing an advertisement for a betting app. 

No, it really doesn't make that case. @The_Admiral said it well, but players and managers can't be allowed to bet on games. On the games where he DIDN'T bet on his team, that implies he didn't think they'd win (since he never bet on his team to lose). It is unlikely that he managed the same depending on his bet for a given game.

[Digby]

1 hour ago, Sec19Row53 said:

No, it really doesn't make that case. @The_Admiral said it well, but players and managers can't be allowed to bet on games. On the games where he DIDN'T bet on his team, that implies he didn't think they'd win (since he never bet on his team to lose). It is unlikely that he managed the same depending on his bet for a given game.

 

No, players/managers shouldn't bet on games, but it's not realistic to expect that in an environment of total gambling-app saturation either. Legalizing it was one thing but the leagues partnering up with these apps officially, opening in-arena sportsbooks, etc.... we are fully at the point of magical thinking to expect that stuff not to affect the sanctity of the game.

[Sec19Row53]

17 minutes ago, Digby said:

 

No, players/managers shouldn't bet on games, but it's not realistic to expect that in an environment of total gambling-app saturation either. Legalizing it was one thing but the leagues partnering up with these apps officially, opening in-arena sportsbooks, etc.... we are fully at the point of magical thinking to expect that stuff not to affect the sanctity of the game.

Agree to disagree, then. If my options are to play/manage at the MLB level, and I need to not gamble on baseball in order for that to happen, I think I can do that, regardless of the proliferation of gambling ads and legal opportunities to do so.

[infrared41]

7 hours ago, Digby said:

The thing with the gambling angle is that now that you can't really make that case considering you can't go 60 seconds watching anything MLB-related without also seeing an advertisement for a betting app. 

 

Did I miss the part where MLB said "We're taking gambling ads now. Players and managers, feel free to bet on your own games?"

[Digby]

4 minutes ago, infrared41 said:

 

Did I miss the part where MLB said "We're taking gambling ads now. Players and managers, feel free to bet on your own games?"

 

 

I never said they did.

 

The league doesn't need to greenlight gambling for on-field personnel, getting in bed with the industry at a league-wide level is enough for it to lose credibility and dignity, and exacerbate the negative effects of legalized and widespread gambling on games.

 

[BBTV]

8 hours ago, Digby said:

The thing with the gambling angle is that now that you can't really make that case considering you can't go 60 seconds watching anything MLB-related without also seeing an advertisement for a betting app. 

 

You can absolutely make a case since he was rigging games and managing bullpens in ways they probably shouldn't have, because he needed certain outcomes, which likely had an effect on other games whether he was gambling on them or not.

 

It literally made the games illegitimate, and screwed other (at the time illegal) gamblers.  You can absolutely make the case since it was the one rule you couldn't break, and it was posted everywhere.  

[BBTV]

On 9/30/2024 at 7:23 PM, SFGiants58 said:

Let’s not forget that Pete Rose transported a minor across state lines for sexual purposes. That should be enough to keep him out.

 

While I liked this post, just wanted to point out that this was never (to my knowledge) proven, the lawyer that started it is also one of [no politics...but... you know]'s lawyers, and references a "guy" that allegedly used to run 12-year-old girls for Rose - and said guy isn't part of this?  I don't doubt that he probably participated in rape and interstate trafficking, but there's no hard evidence of it and no conviction.  Only Rose saying that she was 16 (legal) and never left Ohio (also legal.)

 

again - of course he did it, but it's hard to make a case to  hold it against him for purposes of the HOF when there's no evidence to support it.

 

Unless there is, and I just missed it, which is possible.

[SFGiants58]

That's entirely fair. It's not like Steven Tyler, where we have a documented "adoption" (ew) and some other scummy details. Pete's stuff isn't confirmed, but credible to an extent.

 

I will give Pete this - he took the tombstone fairly well for a non-wrestler.

 

[infrared41]

8 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

That's entirely fair. It's not like Steven Tyler, where we have a documented "adoption" (ew) and some other scummy details.

 

Unfortunately, the underage girls thing was more common than anyone should have been comfortable with back then.

[SFGiants58]

Tell me about it.