Paul Daugherty: Rocket and The Hit King

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Rocket and The Hit King

I'm writing this for tomorrow or the next day, so I dont want to give too much away. But when it comes to voting for the Hall of Fame, I won't vote for Clemens, Mac, Bonds, Palmeiro. But I'll write in Rose. And honestly, I'm not entirely sure why. I'm going to talk to a few people today whose opinions I trust, essentially to explain me to me.

I mean, what's the difference? Are there degrees of cheating? Is one form Hall-worthy and another not? Is one petty larceny and the other grand theft?

Rose bet on the game while (as far as we know) a manager. I believe the other 3 used PEDs as players. I think their crimes are worse. Rose should be voted in as a player, with an explanation on his plaque. And yet, he's not eligible. Mac is, and there's a decent chance that, in time, he'll make it. What's the difference?

Thoughts...

36 Comments:

at 9:26 AM

Unknown said...

In terms of why baseball has banned Rose, the answer is that Rose broke standing rules, had a hearing (baseball's version of one anyway), and eventually confessed...verifying the results of the hearing.

If I recall correctly, and I'm open to correction on this one, the 4 you've mentioned did not break a rule that in their time was officially on the books.

Additionally, they have not yet had any official hearing before baseball, and no one has been found guilty or had a penalty imposed by baseball.

Sure, there's lots of smoke, but there's no proof of fire...YET. But even if proof shows up, will they have broken a written rule of baseball?

Legalistic? Yeah, I know, but that's what trials are all about - legalisms.

In terms of why Paul Daughterty feels differently about Rose -- Could it be because you have lived in Cincy a long time? Or, because you grew up with Rose in the time he was a sports icon? Could it be that you know the man, and you are more able to see the human being and family involved? Maybe you think gambling is a piddly thing, and substance abuse is a deadly thing?

Lots of possibilities -- do any of those strike home?

Just out of curiosity, would it change your position if it were proven that Rose bet on his team to lose, AND made managerial decisions to make that more likely?

Would that change the "eligible as a player, but not as a manager" mantra? Why would it change the mantra, since it would still be managerial decisions and not actions as a player?

at 9:34 AM

Paul Daugherty said...

UCFan, all great questions and a big reason I'm struggling... all I can say for certain is I dont vote for Pete out of personal loyalty... he doesnt like me very much. I do remember how he played the game, but Clemens played it the same way. Maybe it's just that it has never been shown or even suggested that as a player he bet on games, and if we make the distinction, he belongs... cant say the same about the other guys.

at 9:35 AM

Rob Bernard said...

It's pretty simple. Rose's transgressions didn't affect the outcome on the field. The transgressions of Clemens, Mac, Bonds, and Pameiro did affect the outcome on the field.

at 9:49 AM

Anonymous said...

I'm with Paul's thoughts, put him in as a player, and put an explanation there talking about how he disgraced the game. Case closed. And as for the question of Bonds et. al. breaking rules of the game, shouldn't the laws of the land trump the rules of the game? I don't think there is a specific rule against shooting the first baseman so he drops the ball (think "The Last Boyscout," but with baseball), but you still can't reward somebody for doing it.

at 10:10 AM

oldtimer said...

He also never bet on his team to LOSE. Knowing Pete, he couldn't. Has to win no matter what.

In other words, he didn't THROW games. It's a colossally huge distinction, and any argument to the contrary is ludicrous.

His behavior implies the possibility of cheating, but none has ever been proven. Again he broke an important rule, but its biggest intent was to prevent the Black Sox scandal reocurring.

Legally McGuire, Clemens, Canseco, et al did not cheat by letter of law, but they;ve 'cheated' both baseball and fans of the sense of an even playing field and fair play.

Which is worse????

The legalism argument is boring and mundane. The Hall Of Fame requires no choir boy lifestyle or backgroudn checks. Rose's ban from baseball for 15 years continues to be overkill. Selig's sense of justice had better be as equal and fair to this current batch of cheaters as Pete.

I see Selig as small man in a large job. A decent sound bite guy at times, but that's about it. My guess is he'll retire if this mess gets bigger. I find him cowardly and evasive.

Rose gave so much to the game. He's the perfect ambassador, even more so as the prodigal son. Baseball has exacted its revenge threefold. Let it go.

Free Pete! Write him into the Hall. Go, Doc. You have done rocked my world. Rid the world of this cancerous social injustice. Free Pete! Repeat mantra please.

at 10:16 AM

Anonymous said...

Paul, I would say your opinion is valid if you are willing to vote in any of the three steroid users if they manage a team and are extremely sucessful. If you'll vote in Pete as a player but not as a manager could you vote in Clemens as a manager and not as a player if he ever had that oppotunity?

Just my two cents.

at 10:33 AM

Cheviot Sports Authority said...

Rose's accomplishments as a player deserve recognition in the HOF. What is a HOF without your all-time hit leader? He achieved this by playing hard, aggressive baseball within the rules. "Within the rules" is the key here.

Pete has lost my respect as a man, but as a baseball player there is no one that I admire more. Nobody promoted the game as well as Pete did during his reign. He deserves his spot in the HOF.

As for the other guys, how can anyone respect their accomplishments?

at 10:37 AM

Anonymous said...

The biggest injustice is what the actions of these guys have done to diminish the impact of the other players they played with. Ken Griffey Jr, Pedro Martinez, Larry Walker, etc. all are unbelievable talents that had their careers dinged by injuries. Imagine if Griffey had taken HGH, he very well might have beat Bonds to 755.

The court of public opinion will never agree....panel a representative group of players from the steroids era and let them decide the fate.

As much as I love Pete, 14 years of lying and then an admission to sell books just doesn't do it for me. But it will never take away from 4,256 and what he means to the city.

at 10:40 AM

Unknown said...

Tough questions Doc. The baseball HOF should represent players that play at the highest level over a major course of their careers. Yes Rose bet and broke the rules but before that he was arguably the best hitter of all time. He has some kind of record I think? How can the man that holds the hit record not be in the hall of fame? He and all the steroid users should be punished for their crimes. However the HOF is about clean numbers. Rose has enough, Bonds has enough and Clemens has enough. MAC and Sosa pre 98 just dont have them. Bonds saw that he was better than both of them and decided he wasnt going to let them push him to the side. You and I dont want cheaters in the hall of fame but its about numbers. Not perception, personality or any PR circus. There are plenty of people in the hall of fame that arent great people. Which is unfortunate. But it's about the numbers......

at 10:58 AM

Unknown said...

Both have been hits to the "Integrity of the Game." (That phrase seems comical any more).

Rose violated the letter of the law, but many believe that he did not violate the spirit. (The same could be said about Joe Jackson if you look at the stats of the WS).

Clemons may not have violated the letter of the law, but he has surely violated the spirit of the law (and the integrity of the game).

Paul, I'm curious. If Rose stood a chance of being written in and actually making the Hall, would you still vote for him? Or are you tempted to write him in as more of a statement that you'd rather he get in than Clemons?

at 11:00 AM

Anonymous said...

Doc, I suspect that one of the reasons you feel differently about Pete is the passage of time has probably softened your stance a bit. But lets remember, he confessed to breaking baseball's most important rule & knew the consequences when he was breaking the rule.

As for the steroid guys: they cheated. It was against baseball's rules, but since there was no testing, it was almost impossible to get busted, unless you were caught red handed. Of course, we could veer into the greed of the commish, the owners & other mgmt. types who turned a blind eye & raked in the cash that these juiced up freaks were generating. Remember how Selig wasn't anxious to ban Ando after Big Mac hit 70? He was not about to do anything to taint the new record & put a damper on the good times.

Anyway, gambling is way worse. Even if you only bet to win, what does that say on the days you don't bet at all. It says you expect to lose. And if you are betting you could manage differently a hundred ways, like when to use the pen - who & for how long; playing for a big inning vs. playing for a run; deciding to rest a player or risk an injured guy, etc. And if you start losing your bets, you could get in deep to some bookies & pressure might come to influence a game negatively or throw it. The crime is more about associating with gambling types than merely betting on your team to win.

The guys on roids, for all their faults & greed, were doing things in hopes of improving performance, which in turn helps the team.

If I told you that half of all ballplayers were gambling on the game, think about how that would affect your view of the action. Everytime someone whiffed with the bases loaded or booted a groundball, we'd wonder if they were betting & if so could they be throwing the game? You'd wonder who was trying to win. Probably half of all big leaguers have used some performance enhancer, but no one doubts their efforts. We don't doubt that they are trying their best. Once you are a known bettor, all sorts of doubts will creep in. And if fans don't believe that everyone involved in the game is trying their best to win, the legitimacy of the contest is lost.

John Burroughs
Hyde Park

at 11:05 AM

Paul Daugherty said...

Absolutely terrific posts. Intelligent, reasoned, well put. How this forum can and should be used. Thanks very much.

at 12:42 PM

Anonymous said...

Very good post 11:00.

Even betting on your team to win is not acceptable. It makes some games more important than others, and you manage accordingly. The objective of a manager is to win the World Series, not to win on May 17th. When you have money on the game, it suddenly doesn't seem like a bad idea to pitch your closer for 2 innings with a 5 run lead. If you blow the bullpen for no real reason, it's not a big deal. Just don't bet tomorrow. Maybe you take a banged up Ryan Freel who badly needs a day off, and you ask him to pinch run and steal in the 9th. He may go on the DL for a month, but you won today and you haven't placed tomorrow's bet yet.

I may buy an argument that betting to win is ok only if its a preseason bet to win the World Series. Or maybe if in March, Pete took $162,000 and bet a grand on each game to win. That's about all I can give you.

Betting on your own team to win or lose changes the game and that's unacceptable. The Hall of Fame should consider a player's complete contribution to the game, and for that I say no to Pete.

As for steroids, I definitely say no. Some argue that Bonds already had a Hall of Fame career before doing drugs. I can't argue that. In my opinion though, any player who decides to use performance enhancers has made the conscious decision that what they are and were is not good enough and needs to be artificially altered. So if the player thinks they haven't done enough, that should be enough to convince a voter they haven't either.

at 1:03 PM

Anonymous said...

...I watched the congressional hearings w/ Clemens & McNamee - Clemens struck me the same way Palmiero did when he testified. To say the least, their testimony (read: lies) was offensive and insulting to anyone of average intelligence. But then it occurred me; this was exactly the same way Pete Rose behaved when his neck was on the chopping block. It just oozes a pompous, boorish, "I'm above the law" stench, that, in the end brings me to the conclusion that Clemens, Bonds, et al AND Rose do not belong in the Hall of Fame.

at 1:16 PM

Anonymous said...

Of course, Pete, and I guess most everyone else in that day, used amphetamines (called "greenies" because they were little green pills) while playing (Bonds tested positive for it too - amazingly, the only thing he's publicly tested positive for, I believe). They aren't as helpful as roids or HgH, but they are illegal if taken without a prescription (which, of course, they were) and are performance enhancers. There has also been speculation that Pete took roids, though nothing seems to have come of it.

The steroids era was a complete failure all around - the owners wanted the money it brought in, the GMs wanted the players it created or helped, the players wanted the money and the stats and the glory it allowed, etc., etc. Are we not going to vote anyone into the Hall from that era? How do we know who didn't do it?

And if no players get in, no owners, baseball officials, or GMs should either, since they're complicit in the whole thing. And what about the writers? How can you be a Hall of Fame journalist if you can't uncover one of the biggest and certainly the most widespread scandal in baseball history?

at 1:17 PM

Anonymous said...

Performance-enhancing drugs are illegal, but not because they threaten to challenge the integrity of baseball's hallowed records, or provide an unfair advantage for players and their teams.

Steroids are banned because they are dangerous. They can kill you. Usage by pro athletes sends a horrible message to our youth that it's ok to destroy their bodies in exchange for stardom.

But, steroids are FAR more dangerous to the human body than they are to the game of baseball.

If steroids did not have any adverse health concerns, should they be banned?

Aside from the 'traditionalist' statistical arguments, steroids give fans exactly what they want - bigger, faster players, more home runs, wins and excitement. The opportunity to see athletes do superhuman things.

Gambling is banned because it nearly was a death-sentence for the game. Another Black Sox scandal would bring down the game faster than any pill, injection, or labor dispute.

For those who don't believe Rose bet against the Reds ... could you be any more naive?

We know this:

Rose had a gambling problem.

He bet on Reds games regularly.

He bet considerable sums of money.

Now, do you seriously believe he bet "for" the Reds every time regardless of injuries, opposition, ballpark, or other circumstance? If he did, then be assured he owed a lot of powerful people a heck of a lot of money.

As a baseball fan: I would choose an inflated Barry Bonds over another Black Sox scandal, any day.

That said, both infractions are cheating. Both should be punished. Both should have HOF implications.

But, to say steroids are worse than gambling? It's cheating to win vs. cheating to lose.

Both are wrong. But, Doc, you asked me to choose.

at 1:37 PM

Anonymous said...

Both Pete and Clemens did very very very very bad things that don't deserve your vote for the hall of fame.

Don't lose sight of the fact that what Pete Rose did was a very awful thing.

at 1:39 PM

Anonymous said...

I'm with you Doc, you should vote him in as a player, because to be honest, he's not HOF worthy as a manager, betting or not. How the "Hit King" cannot be eligible for the HOF because of rules he broke as a manager is not right.

at 2:33 PM

Anonymous said...

I can't believe your take on this Paul.P.E.R is as big a bum and liar that ever came down the pike.I liked him and still get a kick out of him.But to vote for him and not the others is silly.No to all of them.

at 3:22 PM

Anonymous said...

Where do we draw the line on these substances? Last year, a PGA tour pro (Shawn Micheel) was legally prescribed steroids as I believe he had low testosterone count. According to this year's new PGA drug policy, he would be a cheater. There are reasons that steroids and HGH do exist, other than to help people tackle and hit home runs.

It seems there is a large grey area that nobody talks about.

at 4:49 PM

Anonymous said...

Yeah, there are legitimate reasons steroids and HgH exist.

Steroids are used to replace the testosterone in men who had testicular cancer, to help promote puberty-type growth spurts in boys with pituitary gland problems, and to help rebuild muscle in some cancer patients or people who've undergone certain surgeries. Athletes on roids take about 10 times more dosage than these legit uses require, and take them for much, much longer.

HgH is used to stimulate growth in "little people."

Does it sound like athletes could be taking them for legitimate reasons?

at 7:54 PM

Anonymous said...

I don't think Baseball (commissioner's office) wants Pete Rose to stand at the podium and deliver a HOF inductee speech. I believe P.E.R will be in the HOF, but only after he's 6 feet under ground.

at 8:34 PM

Anonymous said...

Wow. I think I just read the entire Pete Rose excuse book.

Doc. There is just one small problem with everyones logic. Pete broke a rule that was clearly stated and everyone knew. No ambiguity, gamble and you are done. The problem is when Mark M and his cronies were 'roided out what were the league rules on steroids? There weren't any were there? So you are going to give a free ride to a guy who clearly broke the clearly defined rules, and penalize those where no explicit rules existed.

at 9:03 PM

Anonymous said...

4:49...there are legit reasons why an athlete could be taking steroids or HGH, such as athletes suffering from Crohn's disease or from low testosterone (like the situation I mentioned).

I'm not saying I condone any athlete taking these substances for performance, I'm just pointing out that there are situations where someone might have legit reason to be on the substance. It is not a black and white issue.

at 1:11 AM

oldtimer said...

I initially posted that there's a big difference between betting to win and to lose. While 11:00am made a reasonable rebuttal that association with gamblers and the potential to accrue large debts even while betting to win is a dangerous situation and could lead to compromises, still the argument that betting to win and betting to lose is the same is flawed, illogical, and a flimsy excuse for keeping Pete out of the Hall.

It is infinitesimally easier to influence a loss than a win. Period. You can control making an error, or slipping on the bases, or running slowly, or throwing a gopher ball, in other words, underperforming. You cannot deliberately hit a homer, or strike a guy out, or bat in the winning run. Who would put an injured Ryan Freel in to run if they needed a stolen base, as someone suggested? Injured guys don't run fast. And how many managers have risked players' arms or worse for a win just to keep from getting fired? How is that not gambling?

Winning is winning is winning. Using a guy up as a closer on a particular night is done all the time, whether it's gambling with money or just gambling to win without betting involved. So it's OK to gamble on a guy to get you the win as long as money is not involved? I thought gambling meant you would take unfair risks. Happens all the time anyway. Baseball thrives on gambling to win. And Pete knew it. I believe that's why he excused it.

My point is this, when it's winning that's on the line, it's always gambling by managers whether you bet or not. All strategical moves are gambling. You guys forget this. Pete, in his supreme confidence and arrogances, just backed up his hunches with cash cuz he was, is, and always will be an adrenaline junkie. He loved the rush.

So I'm not being naive if I believe Pete didn't throw games. There's been no evidence ever to suggest it. Anyone who believes he did without evidence of any sort is either an oracle or more likely just blowing smoke.

Baseball has its own pseudo legalistic false god, the antitrust act. How hypocritical that you Letter of the Law guys aren't outraged at the way baseball has flaunted the fair trade act and dodged ruling after ruling, at once restricting an owner's freedom to move in quasi legalities while demanding lily white purity from guys like Pete.
Hypocritical.

Pete lied. He created his own bed. He's lain in it a long time. It's time to let him get up and live inside of baseball again. It's really that simple. As Pete says, if he had killed somebody, he would have probably gotten out of jail faster than he has with baseball's bizarre and capricious meting of justice.

Mom, apple pie, fourth of July, and Pete barreling Ray Fosse at home. Nuff said.

at 2:12 AM

Anonymous said...

Paul,

I am a Pete Rose fan, I hope that I can teach my son to play ball the way he did, I hope that I don't slow down the great comments on this blog but I cannont see him ever in the HOF. I seen the interviews, read the books, I even watched that "movie" on espn. I for a long time believe the way you did, but today hearing that Joe did not get into the HOF after getting the most votes in history from the fans my question is the same as Willies was today. Does it matter? Would we even remember outside of Cincinnati who the HIT KING IS? Would we have remembered who Ty Cobb was if it wasn't for all the stories about how much of a jerk he was when he played ball? I think Pete will always been known because of the scandal he will always be remembered as the Hit King. I think he would just be another name on a plaqe if not for that. The others I lost respect for the purity of the game as far as professionals. Maybe it was never really there, the purity is seen when kids pick up a bat and ball. Maybe you wished you were Pete when you were a kid? I did. I still were 14 on Sunday beer league.
My take on the juicers. Did they cheat? Yes and no. Put them in the HOF, don't or do but on either side I could care less about the HOF. Nothing pure about it. What is pure is always remembering that ...rounding third and heading for home, Charle Hustle, number 5 and 8 they were our team. That is what Cincinnati baseball at it's heart will always be. I will still where my 14, try to Hustle out the walk, teach my son to hustle but not spike the ball. I will teach him good sportmanship, and believe that doing your best in a game is more important then the trophy, that this game this great game is just that a game. Some people cheat but can you look at yourself in the mirror and say I gave my best today? That is what the true test is. I question which professional does that or who can do this. Again I hope I did not slow down this blog thanks for all those who took the time to read this.

Chris

at 12:07 PM

Anonymous said...

Just about all of us would prefer a 5-1 homestand over a 1-5 homestand. It looks a lot different though to a compulsive gambler who bet to win that one game and didn't bet on the other five.

Managers take risks to win games all the time. Gambling managers take risks even when the game is essentially decided. I don't want to see Baker pitching Cordero in the 8th inning of a game the Reds are trailing by 10 just to make sure the lead doesn't get any bigger before the Reds' last at bat.

Managers don't look at games one at a time. If they did, how often would we have seen Harang in the 8th inning last year? Managers with money on the line make bad decisions for the sake of winning today, even if the rest of the week is sacrificed.

Just for kicks oldtimer, the word infinitesimally means infinitely small. That's the opposite of what you were trying to use it for.

at 1:39 PM

Bigryan said...

Paul, I'm with you on this one. I don't think any of the junk users should get the HOF. I do have a problem with Pete tho. He also is a cheater but his on the field preformance cannot be denied. That is a tough call

at 5:43 PM

Anonymous said...

With all due respect for Paul and the topic, who cares anymore? Seriously, baseball has completely destroyed its credibility at this point ... the record books are ruined, our heroes are unworthy of our adulation, and only hallowed halls are hearing rooms filled with lawyers, liars, and equivocal statements.

Do we care who is in the Professional Bowling Hall of Fame? How about the Equestrian HOF? Not even the NHL warrants a conversation.

Baseball use to be different ... an unchanging sport played by the same or similar rules, with integity and reliability in the statistical high ground. You care about Pete Rose because, once upon a time, his zeal and statistical accomplishments warranted the "great honor" of admission. You are drawing a line between two different realities, one which exists and another than does not.

What does it matter anymore that the Hits King and Home Run King(s) are on the outside looking in? Absolutely nothing.

at 6:12 PM

oldtimer said...

12.07

Tanks for the heads-up.

The word infinitely was the one that the gremlins got in my early morning typing rapture. Or should I say somnabulence.

Seven syllable words are not to be played with. I try to top out at at five. Anything beyond that is too much pressure.

at 8:39 PM

Anonymous said...

I can forgive a lot but 14 years of lying in-my-face and then coming clean when the book needs sales.
Sorry but I just couldn't vote for the jerk.

at 11:00 AM

Unknown said...

Heresy is never welcome. While religious heresy is much more tolerated than in the past, many will not forgive cultural heresy.

Folks, Baseball is not necessary.

Food, clothing, and shelter are necessary. Baseball, on the other hand, is a game. (Start the bonfire – we have a heretic to burn.)

BETRAYAL OF THE GAME
As a game, baseball is a fiction of created rules devised to make it as rewarding in entertainment value as any game can be. In this, baseball has succeeded quite well, and as a result, it rakes in enormous sums of money as one of our culture’s major forms of entertainment.

To seriously injure the rules, then, is also to injure the suspension of disbelief that fiction requires. For, as already mentioned, baseball is not necessary.

Pete Rose benefited enormously from the game of baseball. He was aware of the rules, and knew that Baseball itself was the victim if the rules were seriously violated. While it would be easy to argue that Rose owed loyalty to the game and its rules, that isn’t really necessary. Everyone knows that every player is aware how stupid it is to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs….to injure the integrity of baseball. (True for Rose…and for Clemens, Bonds, McQuire, etc.)

No one can claim that baseball has not returned the favor and been loyal to its players. Even more, Baseball has been loyal to its all time best celebrities by perpetuating their fame and marketability by enshrining them in its hall of fame. In that hall you can find players, managers, and broadcasters. But, you will not find Pete Rose, even though he was among the best of the best. He is absent for one reason and one reason only.

He betrayed the game itself.

It is insignificant that he was a manager, player, or ball boy at the time, but more on that later. What is significant is that he struck at the foundation of the game itself.

It is this betrayal -- the betrayal of the game that enriched him -- that has him permanently banned from baseball. He betrayed the game in a way that has the potential to permanently cripple it. He struck at the heart of the game's integrity.

PLAYER-MANAGER
Here is a crucial question: “Can the field manager’s role be considered separately from the player’s role in sports?” This is a crucial question because many are saying: “Elect Pete as a player, but don’t elect him as a manager.” Therefore, it is necessary to ask if the field manager’s role can truly be separated from the player’s in baseball?

I would answer that it cannot be. If we were talking about a front office general manager, then I would say it could be separated. But, the field manager is also INVOLVED IN THE GAME. In many ways, the involvement in the game of a baseball manager/coach is an integral part of the game itself in a way that is not true in football and basketball, although those managers also can impose themselves directly on the game.

In baseball, there are actually first and third base coaches who are participants in the field activity during the game. They signal to hitters and runners, they converse with runners, and they actually PARTICIPATE in their real-time efforts in the middle of action during the offensive portion of the game.

Those coaches are an extension of the manager who is relaying signs, yanking pitchers, conversing on the mound, kicking dirt on umpires, and participating in strategy sessions.

Here is something more: Baseball has an oddity known as a player/manager. Important to this discussion, Rose himself was one. I can’t imagine a player/manager in football at all. It’s not possible in college basketball, and in pro basketball, it would be unlikely.

The important point is that Pete Rose was a PLAYER/Manager in 1985 and 1986. The Dowd Report concluded (voluminously) that Pete had gambled on the Reds in 1985 and 1986. Pete’s own words in his autobiography were: (In March 2007 during an interview on "The Dan Patrick Show" on ESPN Radio, Rose said,) "I bet on my team every night. I didn't bet on my team four nights a week. I bet on my team to win every night…

Therefore, Paul, your contention that Pete did not bet on baseball WHILE he was a player is wrong. Pete’s playing career spanned 24 years, and his final year as an active player was 1986.

While a player, he gambled on baseball. While a manager, he gambled on baseball. It appears to me that this is the reason he is banned from the HOF as BOTH a player and a manager.

at 4:37 PM

oldtimer said...

Hey UCfan79

Nice effort on the tome, although some points elude me bit.

Baseball is a fiction...huh?...for me it's a real game played by real people who get paid lots of real money in exchange for real entertainment. A subtle difference to your point, but very important in my mind.

Nowhere in your comment do you mention acknowledge how much Pete gave to the game and improved it during his 24 years, but rather focus on a 2 year period and what you label as his 'betrayal'.

Besides the fact that betrayal is way too strong a word, your lack of presenting a more balanced picture of pros and cons weakens your point and my interest in considering it.

I think the whole point of this blog is how much punishment is enough. Doc wants to vote for Pete, but feels a little conflicted. Rose's whole body of work during his playing years, his serving of a 15 year exile from baseball as punishment for his transgressions, and the amount of good will and excitement he gave to fans as the unabashed ambassador of baseball throughout his career, all add up to a much more different picture thanpresented by those who rather self righteously sit in judgement of his addiction as though he threw a bunch of games and tried to destroy baseball. He did no such thing. Implying anything else is disingenuous.

Pete is the tragic hero of Grecian Formula 44 levels. He is a polarizing figure, no doubt, and I can understand your rather polar opinion. However it fails to embody all the wondrous enthusiasm and hustling excitement that Pete gave to the game, and which deserves at least equal weight.

Pete has a gambling addiction. If he can show he has gotten treatment and is clean, the talking heads that rule baseball need to let him out of jail. It's really that simple. Had he THROWN games, I would agree with your point more.

Free Pete!

at 6:00 PM

Unknown said...

Thanks for your comments, OT. My points are:

Pete is guilty of attacking the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Pete is guilty of gambling as a player.

Pete is guilty of gambling as a manager.

Pete's crimes against baseball would have turned it into a pitch/hit version of WWF (WWE)

Is big time wrestling real or fake, OT?

at 7:43 PM

Anonymous said...

"I bet on my team to win every night…"
Assuming that's a correct quote, Pete was just laying another lie on top of the BIG lie (I never...).
Pete was betting for the thrill of winning big money (I'm OK with that) but betting Reds to win "every night" regardless of opponent/pitcher/etc, >> Pete absolutely NEVER did that.

at 12:54 PM

Anonymous said...

Pete belongs in the HOF if only as a player. greatest hitter of all-time. he hustled more after being walked than many players do when running out a ground ball. he was GREAT for the sanctity of the game, just had a gambling problem.

there is NO evidence he cheated to lose. he never cheated at all.

imagine how ridiculous Pete's hit record would be had he taken steroids. or the thought that hank aaron would have hit more than 1,000 home runs if he was juiced up. steroids are so much worse for the game its not even comparable!

Previous Posts

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Rocket and The Hit King

36 Comments: