Paul Daugherty: The Hit King and the Rocket Man

Thursday, May 01, 2008

The Hit King and the Rocket Man

The similarities are striking. Anyone else notice this?

Roger Clemens' barrel-chested arrogance during this whole post-Mitchell Report era looks a lot like Pete Rose's act after 8/24/89. You could see it right away, during Clemens' 60 Minutes interview. If his chin had been thrust out any further, it would've clocked Mike Wallace right between the eyes.

There is something in a great athlete's makeup that causes him to believe he can win any contest if he just keeps at it long enough. That's good and bad. Pete kept denying he bet on baseball because he believed he could outlast the charges, same as he outlasted Ty Cobb's record. Pete believed there was no game he couldnt win, so long as he had the time and the will. Watching him deny for more than a decade was no different than watching him bone his bats.

Clemens is the same. He seems to think if he aggressively denies he juiced, that the force of his personality/celebrity/achievements will carry the day. And he doesnt care who gets smashed beneath the bus in the process.

King Roger has embarrassed his wife completely, put his family under unfair scrutiny and has said everyone lied but him. Rather than take the Jason Giambi route and admit what he did, Clemens chose to fight. The only difference between he and Pete is that Pete's downfall hurt mainly himself. But there is a good chance the outcome will be similar. I wonder who Clemens will pick to write his confessional memoir.

23 Comments:

at 8:04 AM

Unknown said...

Presumed innocent until proven guilty....always a good principle to abide by.

Unless you have inside info.

at 8:12 AM

Anonymous said...

In a court of law yes, in the court of public opinion not so much. Athletes and celebs tend to under estimate the intellect of fans. Heck most athletes could not spell intellect.

at 8:17 AM

Anonymous said...

Pete didn't commit statutory rape on a 15 year old. Get some perspective, Paul. One should be in the Hall of Fame and the other should be in jail.

at 9:34 AM

oldtimer said...

Couldn't agree with you more, Doc. Virtually same words have been spilling out of my mouth for years.

Combine success and adolation, elevate it to legendary status, throw in some fame and money, and what is created is an self image that is more real than reality, in a competitor's mind. Whether at sports, business, politics, or even religion, as TV evangelists have shown.

A very wise friend of mine once said:

The hardest thing to change about ourselves is our own self image.

I guess the other maxim that applies so well is pride goeth before a fall.

It must be weird and painful for stars in a rich and jaded ego-laden culture like ours to deal with their failings publicly. They've been built up so high beyond all measure that failure is simply not a option, in their won minds. Makes sense the the first tendency is to deny all.

I still love Pete, he played baseball like it's meant to be played. The same character traits that propelled him to greatness bacame tragic flaws that led to his complete estrangement from tha which he loves most. Clemens seems destined to repeat the same pattern. I wish they would show the same competitive spirit in fixing their messes as they did in winning on the field. Don't lie, battle through the adversity of your ways, and become a better person. In a perfect world, of course.

at 10:00 AM

Anonymous said...

I think the whole point of Daugherty's post here is overlooked.

Yes, rape is much worst than gambling on baseball. But it's the arrogance and hubris of both men that led them to defiantly deny their wrongdoings for so long.

While in college, I was a pitcher for our team. Around that time, Clemons was pitching in a championship game. I think it was against Oakland.

Anyway, there was some kind of controversy when Clemons was on the mound that involved the home plate umpire. They showed a slow-motion replay close up of Clemons' reaction. Being deaf, I could clearly read his lips when he replied to the umpire, "I ain't f+++ing talking to ewww!" I was surprised because I would never think to say that to an umpire, no matter how much I disagreed with his calls.

So even during the early part of his career (this was about 1989 or so), the hubris and arrogance was already there, and no doubt got worst as more and more adulation poured down on Clemons through the years.

The more that happens, and if the person is not well-grounded to begin with, the more that kind of stuff goes to your head and will make you think you can get away with anything.

Mike Walton
Chantilly, Virginia

at 10:43 AM

Anonymous said...

Since the first time Pete Rose walked into a major league clubhouse he knew there was one thing he could not do; namely bet on baseball. He felt he was above the rule.
So why do people still say he should be in the HOF? He knew the rules. The argument that what he did as a manager should not effect what he accomplished as a player is nothing but a tired and weak rationalization. Which is what athletes that feel they are above rules do.
What is confusing is after fans learn what fools they have been for believeing these guys is they still support them. Why?

Robert Young
Milford

at 10:43 AM

Anonymous said...

at 10:45 AM

Anonymous said...

Don't think you'll be seeing a confessional book from The Rajah. Pete needed the money. But Roger got $17 million from the Steinbrenner's to pitch half a year last year alone.
If he still needs money, then he's living really, really large (& not in the good way).
J. David

at 10:54 AM

Anonymous said...

It's interesting to look at how three different players have handled similar controversy.

Mark McGwire, since his baffling "performance" at the hearings, has essentially disappeared into hiding and not said a word. Most of us have translated his actions as an admission of guilt or not facing the consequences by being truthful and honest.

Roger Clemens took a gamble on a loudmouth, PR campaign that has come back to bite him in the arse.

And then, as Doc mentioned, there's Jason Giambi. I live in NYC, and I can tell you, even though Yankees fans have watched his skills decline by the at bat, there's a respect you have for the man because of his honesty. He could have continued to lie and cheat. Instead, he admitted the truth and has gracefully faced all questions about it as his on-field career continues to slide.

One has to think that you always take it like a man like Giambi has, as opposed to fighting the truth and further damaging your status as a one-time lock for the Hall of Fame.

at 12:36 PM

Anonymous said...

Paul, you are right on the money. Clemmons, if he is guilty, is an idiot for going on national television and denying it..

He learned nothing from Pete Rose, and again, if he is guilty, and either admits to and is found to be, will suffer the same fate as old Charlie Hustle

at 1:26 PM

Anonymous said...

Have you seen the growing list of women involved with Clemons? Good grief! No wonder he needede steroids!

at 3:02 PM

oldtimer said...

Let me clarify something.

I have no problem still being a supporter of Pete Rose, nor does the label 'fool' aptly fit my actions, as some here suggest. Labels are for those who see the world through their own moral vision of black and white, of course seeing themselves on the side of the righteous. Rules can be great guidelines, but they can also be used as sledgehammers by the righteous. In my world the latter is called arrogance.

The world is not a black and white place, rather gray and shaded with many muted colors. We release killers and rapists from prison after time served, with the thought that they have served their punishment, understand their errors, and deserve a compassionate society's forgiveness and second chance. In the world I live in people can and often do change. Pete Rose
may be a shameless self promoter and a man caught for a long time in the web of his own lies, but he was also one of baseball's best ambassadors for many years, and every time I listen to him talk baseball, I feel a little smarter.
His good in baseball still overshadows the bad he did. It's time to reinstate him. He's more than done his time.

Hero love is a good thing, warts and all.

Moral compasses are funny in that they can go haywire around a magnetic personality. Those who sit in judgment of Pete, from Selig on down to the local level, are being two faced in my book. Maybe as we watch Clemons repeat Pete's mistakes, we'll realize it is a fairly normal human behavior to deny wrongdoing at first. When you're a hero of completely overblown proportions, the resistance to the fall is directly proportional to the dizzying height of the rise.

Pete will be in the Hall of Fame some day. As will Clemons. Bud Selig's moral code resembles that of a snake more than a righteous lion. How morally correct are most car dealerships, for chrissakes??? They teach their sales team to lie and switch bait all the time. Give me a break.

at 3:10 PM

Anonymous said...

Pete also had most of a city, a legion of 'friends', and mouthpieces in the media to lend aid and comfort to his lies.

For some reason, Clemens does too.

at 6:53 AM

Anonymous said...

Old Timer you make some valid points. But I fail to see how Selig owning car dealerships has anything to du w/ a tax cheat, baseball rule breaker and serial liar. I am not claiming to be a saint by any stretch but I know the rules on baseball betting are black and white and very clear. Rose did the crime and is doing the time somewhere other than Cooperstown. And lest one thinks I'm a life long Rose hater I spent a week at Riverfront so to be able to witness 4192 in person. The difference being a few years later when Rose refused to admit the obvious I quit seeing things thru Rose Colored Glases. We all make mistakes in life, most of us though do not spend 15 years lying about it to supporters, and then expect them to still be supporters.

Robert Young
Milford

at 10:07 AM

Anonymous said...

Oldtimer,

I am a Pete Fan as well but dude... ?

God your annoying!

Pete should be in the Hall because what he did, did not directly effect his stats, wins, or whatever the heck else oldtimer most likely graced us with.

Carson Palmer will win the Nobel Peace Prize (and MVP [just sayin])

Mike in my our own little world

at 10:21 AM

Anonymous said...

I'd love to know how Pete was the "games best ambassador" as he always claims, and how his blind followers repeat.

What did he do exactly? Play? Get his uniform dirty? Sorry, that is just doing his job, not being the best ambassador to baseball.

After his playing days, Pete humiliated the game of baseball, he did not honor it.

at 11:22 PM

oldtimer said...

Pete's certainly had his share of guys he rubbed the wrong way, and he got too big for his britches in his latter playing days and early managing days. I concede that. But I'm surprised by the moral righteousness that accompanies a lot of the comments. Feel like I'm almost at a Bush convention. Let's not forget he is still arguably the most beloved athlete this town has ever produced, to this day. Period. Deal with it.

His character flaws are well documented. So too were his enthusiasm, hustle, and incredible playing skills, as well as the umcanny ability to help players that played with him have their best years. No coincidence at all, a well documented fact. Just look at the record. Why? Cuz he brought a focus, an intensity that rubbed off on his teammates, even those that barely tolerated his style, and helped them focus better than they ever had in their careers. Schmitty, Bench, Morgan, Perez, all had their best years playing with Pete. Carter too. He had an almost shamanistic (look it up)sense about baseball that transcended the rational, and his ability to break down a pitcher, a game, or a series was and is legendary, almost freaky in its accuracy. This is something baseball benefitted from and sorely misses in his absence. You can call him either a baseball genius or idiot savant, depending on how you want to look at it, but to focus only on his gambling and denial issues belittles the reality of the situation.

Professional sports has allowed many players with compulsive addictions back into their industry through reinstatement. We rush to forgive the Odell Thurmans and many others with addictions. Why is Pete so different? He remains a folk hero here in Cincinnati, loved as a player and person by many, even as some find it so necessary to begrudge him that love.

No evidence has EVER been presented to suggest or prove Pete threw games. Which is where the real meat of the rule applies. Betting to win is infinitely different than betting to lose. Why is that so hard to understand?Even Doc has opined that Pete couldn't bet to lose cuz he HAD to win. Always. I've seen so much innuendo on this subject by those who dislike him. He finshed second a couple times as a manager too with inferior teams. Wouldn't that be a refreshing change, to say the least, to the last eight years, in this the season of Old Loyalties and Lost Opportunities?

Sorry, I happen to think all this ax grinding toward Rose is bloated and s bit too self congratulatory. Pete did wrong to baseball for a while, but for over twenty years he represented the game extremely well and helped fuel its skyrocketing growth. He embodied much of what is exciting and good about the game and provided many many moments of entertainment and enjoyment. I haven't figured out why some need him to be their poster child for the decline of morality in society at large. A bit hypocritical, to my mind, in that Pete played baseball almost in a hypnotic frenzied way, which is what we wanted and what made him so great and so susceptible afterwards to finding a new source of that elusive high. Paul Hornung got back in football after confessing his gambling sins, Pete deserves his seond chance too. End of story.

As CLemon's sad tale unfolds, Pete's finally recedes into the background. Let's see how ol Two Face Bud bojangles his way around this latest mess.

at 1:37 AM

Anonymous said...

Tis' true, Rose is no saint, and definitely violated Major League Baseball's rules. However, when faced with other situations, such as Bonds, Clemens, Pettite, Knoblauch, etc.; taking illegal drugs (maybe not illegal to Major League Baseball, but illegal in a FEDERAL sense), where do we draw the line, and stop being self-rightous about baseball's rules and start becoming rightous about our COUNTRY'S LAWS? I am a correctional officer, and, truly stated, have not yet seen one inmate in my 9 years of correctional experience, have a conviction for GAMBLING. However, I have seen quite a few that have had lenghty sentences for drugs. Both are diseases, both are not the most conducive pastimes to a person's life, but, when you look at baseball, and see proven drug users such as Steve Howe, Daryl Strawberry, heck, even Dave Parker and Pedro Guirrero with cocaine, have gotten away with it, when do we, as fans and normal-thinking people, stand up and tell baseball and Bud Selig that "enough is enough" and that the vendetta is over? Because baseball makes a rule, does that make it golden? Does that make it a Ten Commandment? No, I should think not. So, complain about Rose all you want. He was convicted of tax evasion after being banned from baseball, which, about 75% of America cheats on their taxes somehow. It was never proven he took drugs (I know, there was the uppers rumor, but not ever proven), yet, we blackball him, even after he apologizes and admits he was wrong. Compare that to today, where Clemens is rumored to have had illicit (and illegal) relations with females in their TEENS, along with the charges of illegal drug use, yet the public, much like Rose, want to believe him, out of blind faith. Folks, open your eyes. If Clemens was Joe Schmoe, you all would have convicted him already, and be asking for the book to be thrown at him. Don't let the athletic prowess blind your views on right and wrong.

Jim Sprague
Fort Lewis, Washington

at 9:31 AM

Anonymous said...

I understand this has nothing to do with Doc's post but I have to comment on this quote from oldtimer.

"No evidence has EVER been presented to suggest or prove Pete threw games. Which is where the real meat of the rule applies. Betting to win is infinitely different than betting to lose. Why is that so hard to understand?"

This is the argument that Pete Rose supports make that always kills me. Okay, he always bet the Reds to win. SO WHAT?? The notion that somehow always betting the Reds to win makes betting on the team okay baffles me. To me it seems a manager could do just as much, if not more, damage to his team by betting on them to win as to lose. Think about it for a minute. If Pete has bet on the Reds to lose and he knows one of his relievers (say John Franco) has pitched on consecutive days and has a tired arm, he might not use that pitcher. Or he might convince a player who has a minor injury to take the night off. But if he bets the team to win, he might use the pitcher with a sore arm or he might talk that player with a minor injury to play. In other words, he has just as much power to potentially damange a player's career betting the team to win as he does betting them to lose. I don't understand people who think it's okay that he bet on games just because he bet the Reds to win. That doesn't make any sense to me at all.

Pete should be in the Hall of Fame for what he did as a player. That said, if he is ever reinstated in baseball, anyone who would give him a job managing or coaching for a major league team would be out of their mind. Just my honest opinion.

at 10:37 AM

Paul Daugherty said...

931... Pete didnt bet on every game... that could be interpreted as a tacit admission there were games he believed his team would lose.

at 1:15 PM

Anonymous said...

Yeah I know Paul. The line I quoted about no one ever proving Pete bet on the team to lose games was from oldtimer's 11:22PM post. I was just trying to make the point that, in my opinion, it doesn't matter if Pete bet on his team to win or to lose. Neither action should be considered acceptable and the fact that some people would consider betting the team always to win "okay" doesn't make sense to me.

at 11:04 AM

Anonymous said...

Pete Rose didn't break a Hall of Fame rule. He broke a baseball rule. AFTER Rose was banned from Baseball, the Hall of Fame quickly (and I mean quickly) passed a rule that anyone dismissed from baseball couldn't appear on a HOF ballot. Pretty quick thinking, those self-righteous dudes at the HOF. Of course, they allow in drug smugglers and players who have been convicted of manslaughter. Nice, real nice.

at 8:43 AM

Anonymous said...

Pete Rose and Roger Clemens both deserve to be in the Hall of Fame based on their outstanding career accomplishments. If you want them to face "jail time" for something, let the criminal justice system handle it. If you want them to pay "civil" damages that can be addressed in civil proceedings. If you want them to be further shamed, punished BEYOND jail, fines, civil actions, and exile from baseball.....then God help YOU if you ever make a mistake. By the way, the HOF had no rule banning players from eligibility who had been banished from baseball...None...Rose was eligible...but then the HOF "quickly" passed a rule before he could be placed on a ballot so they wouldn't have to deal with the issue. Rose and Clemens may be alot of things.....but they were also two of the greatest ballplayers ever to put on a uniform. They deserve the chance to be voted on.

Previous Posts

Thursday, May 01, 2008

The Hit King and the Rocket Man

23 Comments: