Interesting ESPN poll regarding Pete Rose's lifetime ban

packs · #1 08-29-2014, 10:01 AM

I don't know why anyone would believe a compulsive gambler would take a sucker bet that he knows is impossible to win. I.e. it is not possible to win every single game you play, but you really believe that Rose only bet on the Reds to win? Come on. First he never gambled. Then he did gamble, but it was only in favor of the Reds.

Give me a break.

If Rose did bet on the Reds and bet big, then he would expend all of the resources available to him to win one single game. That could throw the next game, or series of games, into jeopardy.

For example, Rose has a ton of money on the line for the Reds to win. He uses all of his pitchers in an effort to win the game. Now he has no one available for the next game. Isn't he sacrificing tomorrow for today in this situation? No one sees a problem with trying to win for personal profit over trying to win for the good of the team?

drcy · #2 08-29-2014, 08:30 PM

Dowd has said the evidence points to Rose betting against the Reds and he believes Rose bet against the Reds.

This "only bet for the Reds" story appears to nothing more than an urban myth concocted by pathological liar (Rose) and repeated by his followers. At this point, only the cognitively challenged take what Rose says as "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth," especially when Dowd contradicts.

Mountaineer1999 · #3 08-29-2014, 09:37 PM

Damn, You guys are a tough crowd. Cognitively challenged? I had to look that one up. I don't think anyone believes Pete Rose, we supporters just know what he did for the game and how he played the game. Most feel he has served a penalty and should be allowed back. Put him on the ballot and let HOF voters decide, if they say no then it's no. The commissioners office has had a steroids supporting , turn the other cheek because it's making us Money, moron in there for the past 20 something years. Maybe all these cheating steroid users should be banned from the game because they certainly tainted the outcome of games.

steve B · #4 08-30-2014, 06:13 PM

The difference is that Baseball has had a policy - A clearly posted one at that - stating that betting is a ban. Until things hit the fan, they had no PED policy whatsoever.

Willie Mays was banned temporarily for simply being an investor in an Atlantic City casino and doing some PR work for them. Not even gambling on baseball, Not necessarily even gambling (Other than the investment ) just being associated that closely with it. Oddly, he was already in the hall, and wasn't removed, but couldn't attend games.

And have we all forgotten that Rose did some other stuff that was pretty sleazy and close to criminal? Stuff involving selling memorabilia that was very questionable? (Not just using multiple bats for every at bat and more than one uniform per game)

Great player? Yes, one of the best ever. And played hard pretty much all the time.
But Banned is banned. He's out and considering how much he did and his attitude about it should remain banned. No Baseball, no HOF.
And yes, the spineless "leadership" that took money to let him be around for a sponsor did nothing to help baseball in general (And should themselves be banned in my opinion. They've simply been useless and detrimental too many times. )

Steve B

HRBAKER · #5 08-30-2014, 07:18 PM

Pete Rose is and will always be (IMO) regarded as one of the all-time great baseball players. His banishment doesn't change that. However he is far from any type of sympathetic figure. The punishment he is enduring was brought upon himself solely by himself and is literally what he signed up for and agreed to. Steroids have nothing to do with it.

bosoxfan · #6 09-01-2014, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drcy

Dowd has said the evidence points to Rose betting against the Reds and he believes Rose bet against the Reds.

This "only bet for the Reds" story appears to nothing more than an urban myth concocted by pathological liar (Rose) and repeated by his followers. At this point, only the cognitively challenged take what Rose says as "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth," especially when Dowd contradicts.

Having evidence pointing to Rose betting against the Reds is simply not true.

With the evidence they have on him, they matched his betting slips with the games he bet on the Reds and found no proof of him even overusing his best pitchers for those games. They certainly never found evidence of him betting against the Reds.

Ban him from baseball, coaching, managing, but put him on the HOF ballot. He'll probably never get voted in anyway

CMIZ5290 · #7 09-01-2014, 06:14 PM

Here is a huge issue I have...Rose is banned from baseball, but McGwire is a Coach in the MLB? What's wrong with that picture????

clydepepper · #8 09-03-2014, 07:57 PM

Here's the only way I would change my stance of being against lifting the ban:

To be fair, since Ron Santo waited and waited and perhaps Minnie Minoso and Luis Tiant will have to do the same, Rose can go in after he's dead (or after I'm dead) whichever comes first...and I feel fine, thank you!

the 'stache · #9 09-04-2014, 03:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

Here is a huge issue I have...Rose is banned from baseball, but McGwire is a Coach in the MLB? What's wrong with that picture????

Kevin, this is a phenomena I refer to as selective indignation. People get really irked about cheating in baseball so long as it's not their guy that's involved.

People always say what a genius Tony LaRussa was as a manager. Darn straight. He was able to pull the wool over people's eyes.

We knew McGwire used while he was with the A's. We know Canseco used while a member of the A's, too. Want to see some compelling evidence that funny stuff was going on in Oakland?

Terry Steinbach's season by season home run figures, all with Oakland.

1987: 16
1988: 9
1989: 7
1990: 9
1991: 6
1992: 12
1993: 10
1994: 11
1995: 15
1996: 35

The Oakland A's hit 243 home runs in 1996. 243 stinking home runs! McGwire hit 52. Geronimo Berroa, who hit a total of 101 home runs in his career, hit 36. Of course, Steinbach hit his 35 (and hit 12 the next season). Scott Brosius hit 22, Jason Giambi hit 20, Ernie Young (who?) hit 19, Matt Stairs hit 10.

And the A's won 78 games. John Wasdin (who again?) led the team with 8 wins. Nobody struck out more than 100 batters. Carlos Reyes struck out 78 to lead the team.

LaRussa had left before the season started. Philip Seymour Hof....er, Art Howe was now the manager.

But yeah, there was nothing funny going on in Oakland. Tony LaRussa totally belonged in the Hall of Fame.

nolemmings · #10 09-04-2014, 02:39 PM

I have no problem bashing LaRussa, or at least greatly downgrading his "achievements", given the talented teams he was provided to skipper. His post-season performance was remarkably lacking IMO. Even the last WS with the Cardinals he looked literally dazed and confused on several occasions, made bad decisions and created stories to explain his misuse of the bullpen. And his post season failures are legendary--starting back in '83 when his 99 win White Sox could only score 3 runs in 4 games against Baltimore, his '88 A's were manhandled by a Dodgers team that was the weakest WS representative in 22 years (since the '66 Dodgers, with a possible argument for the '73 Mets), and his '90 A's not only failed as favorites (103 wins), but were SWEPT by the Reds. Throw in that pitcher batting 8th crap and I always thought that this guy's "mystique" was mostly media created and did not stand up to close scrutiny.

That being said, Bill, I find your arguments unpersuasive. As a Terry Steinbach fan (I watched him play as a 14 year old), I take some umbrage at calling him out for his one HR season. Apart from that, however, your criticism of the 1996 A's as juicers makes little sense when tied to LaRussa inasmuch you acknowledge he left before that season started. So having left the team before 1996, LaRussa "knew" that his catcher would start juicing after? That makes little sense.

As for Steinbach, he was there throughout the bash-brothers era of '87-92. Why didn't he hit HRs then? Is is possible that he just had a fluke year? Keep in mind, he also had significantly more games and plate appearances in '96 than any other season, and that also was playing for his last contract--becoming a free agent at the end of the year. And BTW, Brady Anderson hit 50 that year, not playing for Tony LaRussa.

As for the A's HR total, again Larussa was not there so how is that attributed to him? Also, the A's finished third in MLB that year in HR's, so others were belting 'em too. In all, 8 teams hit more than 200 HR's that season, compared to 1 the year prior and 3 the year following. It was a fluke year all around, and many of us thought the ball was as juiced as any player.

I'm not saying that LaRussa was unaware throughout the years of what was going on his clubhouse--I just don't understand how your "evidence" shows it.

the 'stache · #11 09-05-2014, 07:42 AM

Todd, I'm not tying what happened in 1996 to LaRussa at all. I said that LaRussa had already left by then in my post. My bringing Terry Steinbach's season by season home run total up was an attempt to show that whoever was responsible for doing the steroid injecting was still there. It was either a trainer, Mark McGwire, or somebody connected with one of the two. Nobody thought it was LaRussa doing the injecting, so it wouldn't have stopped with his departure.

It's great you're a Terry Steinbach fan. And if there is another explanation for all of this that has nothing to do with steroids, I will be the first to admit my mistakes. But no, it wasn't due to a fluke year. Yes, he had more at bats than he did in any other season. But we're talking about 50 or so more at bats. Based on his seasonal averages before and after 1996, that should have accounted for an extra two home runs, maybe three. He hit twenty more home runs than he did in any other season. In fact, that improvement over his previous season high itself is more home runs than he'd ever hit before in a single season. He improved his career best, 16 home runs, by 20. Why hadn't he hit home runs before when the Bash Brothers were there? Who knows? Maybe he didn't want to be a power hitter before. Maybe he felt that bulking up would impact his flexibility, and his ability to catch effectively. That would be a question for Terry Steinbach. However, you said yourself he was coming up on what would have been his final contract. Money would be a pretty good reason to take a performance enhancing drug. What better feather to have in your cap when visiting other teams, looking for that final paycheck? Saying "hey, I hit 36 home runs, and drove in over 100 last year...as a catcher" would have made for a compelling reason to sign him. The Twins gave him nearly $7 million. Maybe they were expecting similar power production.

I do not lightly throw the word steroids out. But when Steinbach, who never hit so much as 20 home runs in any of his other 12 full Major League seasons suddenly hits 36 home runs, on a team that's surrounded by players who we know now have used steroids (Mark McGwire, Jeremy Giambi, Geronimo Beroa), some eyebrows should raise.

Look at this dispassionately. Mark McGwire said that before the 1995 season he was a MASH unit. In 1993 and 1994 he hit 9 home runs each season. His back was so bad, he couldn't even get on the field. Then, in 1995, McGwire hits 39 home runs...in 104 games. He went from hitting 18 home runs in two seasons to hitting 39 home runs in 317 at bats, a rate of one home run once every 8.13 at bats. The next season, he plays the whole year, and hits 52 home runs. Geronimo Berroa, who had 2 career home runs before age 29, hits 13 home runs in 1994, 22 in 1995, and 36 out of nowhere in 1996. He hit 26 home runs in 1997 (16 in half a season with Oakland, 10 in the second half with Baltimore, then in 1998, 1999 and 2000 he hit 1, 1 and 0 home runs. And Terry Steinbach, a very good defensive catcher with some pop, suddenly in 1996, after never hitting more than 16 home runs in any season, hits 36 home runs, equaling his home run total from the last three years combined. Then he leaves Oakland, and in 1997 with Minnesota, he hits 12 home runs, and never hits more than 14 home runs again.

It could be a hell of a coincidence that a guy who basically never even got to play in the Major Leagues before he was 30 morphs into a guy that nearly hits 40 bombs in one season, and is back to 1 home run a season within two years, that Mark McGwire, who could barely walk for two years, is back to hitting 50 home runs and more a season, and that Terry Steinbach suddenly becomes Johnny Bench for one year. But to borrow from Brad Pitt's character Lt. Aldo Raine in Inglourious Basterds, "Ya, we've got a word for that kinda odd in English. It's called suspicious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I have no problem bashing LaRussa, or at least greatly downgrading his "achievements", given the talented teams he was provided to skipper. His post-season performance was remarkably lacking IMO. Even the last WS with the Cardinals he looked literally dazed and confused on several occasions, made bad decisions and created stories to explain his misuse of the bullpen. And his post season failures are legendary--starting back in '83 when his 99 win White Sox could only score 3 runs in 4 games against Baltimore, his '88 A's were manhandled by a Dodgers team that was the weakest WS representative in 22 years (since the '66 Dodgers, with a possible argument for the '73 Mets), and his '90 A's not only failed as favorites (103 wins), but were SWEPT by the Reds. Throw in that pitcher batting 8th crap and I always thought that this guy's "mystique" was mostly media created and did not stand up to close scrutiny.

That being said, Bill, I find your arguments unpersuasive. As a Terry Steinbach fan (I watched him play as a 14 year old), I take some umbrage at calling him out for his one HR season. Apart from that, however, your criticism of the 1996 A's as juicers makes little sense when tied to LaRussa inasmuch you acknowledge he left before that season started. So having left the team before 1996, LaRussa "knew" that his catcher would start juicing after? That makes little sense.

As for Steinbach, he was there throughout the bash-brothers era of '87-92. Why didn't he hit HRs then? Is is possible that he just had a fluke year? Keep in mind, he also had significantly more games and plate appearances in '96 than any other season, and that also was playing for his last contract--becoming a free agent at the end of the year. And BTW, Brady Anderson hit 50 that year, not playing for Tony LaRussa.

As for the A's HR total, again Larussa was not there so how is that attributed to him? Also, the A's finished third in MLB that year in HR's, so others were belting 'em too. In all, 8 teams hit more than 200 HR's that season, compared to 1 the year prior and 3 the year following. It was a fluke year all around, and many of us thought the ball was as juiced as any player.

I'm not saying that LaRussa was unaware throughout the years of what was going on his clubhouse--I just don't understand how your "evidence" shows it.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Interesting article on ESPN	tcdyess	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	2	02-03-2012 07:44 PM
OT: Interesting Story On Pete Rose and Corked Bats	slidekellyslide	Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used	18	08-22-2010 03:13 AM
Interesting poll.......	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	29	09-16-2006 08:09 AM
Interesting article on the "10 Most Desirable Cards" on ESPN.com	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	5	07-31-2006 06:42 AM
The Current poll is very interesting	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	8	04-02-2006 06:12 PM