Bits on a Monday

by Tom Dakers on Aug 24, 2009 11:27 AM EDT in News Comment 4 comments

Happy Monday, the world looks better after a win, if we can show this sort of offense for the last month and a half, it will be fun watching. Fewer games with Barajas or Millar batting cleanup would help. Good offense, good pitching and a Raul Chavez steal each game might be asking a bit much though.

More after the jump...

Richard Griffin has a nice profile of Travis Snider in the Star today, but this line:

It has been a long time coming, but finally the highly touted rookie seems back on track.

seems a little much. A long time coming? The guy is 21. But it is a nice piece with quotes from grizzled veteran Randy Ruiz.

I missed this, from The Southpaw, the other day but he has his take on the failure to sign three of our top draft picks. A little apologetic too, but a fair look.

Basically, I would suggest, there are three separate issues here which coincidentally and unfortunately happened all at the same time. Any one of the three, in isolation, is a non-issue. Any two of the three you write off as crappy luck and still no one can draw too much inference. But three? Three smells funny. But the thing about unusual events is that they are rare (thus the "unusual" part) but they DO happen (thus the "events" part). What we have here was an unusual event - three unfortunate circumstances which HAPPENED to occur at once.

Around the baseball world, as well as the game ending triple play for the Phillies, John Smoltz, released by the Red Sox for the 8.32 ERA, had a great first start for the Cardinals. He struck out 9, including 7 straight, kept the Padres scoreless for 5 innings, giving up just 3 hits and got the win. Funny how a guy can awful for one team then go out and pitch great for another. But it was only one start and it was against the Padres. Let's see if he can keep it going.

From Jordan Bastain's Twitter:

Rays Maddon on Rangers' Feldman: "That was the best pitched game against us all year." Um, Buehrle might disagree ...

Managers have a short memory.

And, in case you missed it on the weekend, Mike Schmidt made the case for allowing Pete Rose into the Hall of Fame.

So here's my first question: Did Pete Rose, in fact, knowingly compromise the integrity of baseball? And second, did/do the players who used steroids knowingly compromise the integrity of baseball? Pete bet on the Reds to win, never to lose. He never managed with the intention of not winning.

Personally I see betting on games in a whole different light than using steroids. The reason that there are rules against gambling, that every team talks about every year at the start of spring training, is that the game wants to keep gamblers away from from the game. You all know the story of the 'Black Sox' and how a handful of players decided to throw the World Series, way back when. More recently the NBA had their own problems with a referee having ties to gamblers. Fans want to know that the game is being decided on the field.

Schmidt, saying that Pete 'only bet on the Reds to win' isn't really helping Pete's cause. The trouble is when he bets on his team Monday, Tuesday and Thursday, what is he telling the gamblers about Wednesday's game? 'Guys, Pete doesn't believe his team can win on Wednesday.' Besides that when the losses mount what's to stop someone that he owes money to from saying 'hey Pete we can work out a deal.' Or even if the losses don't mount (yeah right) what's to stop someone from blackmailing him, knowing that he wouldn't want baseball to find out that he is betting.

And that's close to what happened. He was betting on other things and losing money, at some point he figured 'why don't I bet on the sport I know?' And later, someone did try to blackmail him, that's how baseball caught him.

Pete was enough of a student of the history of the game to know what would happen if he got caught. He knew Joe Jackson's story. He just figured he was too smart to get caught and that he was too important for them ban him if he was caught.

And Pat Tabler did a couple of minutes on the subject during yesterday's game and he said a couple of things that really don't help Pete. First he said 'Pete only bet when he was a manager, not as a player.' A) how do you know? B) Who cares? It isn't like a manager can't throw a game and it isn't like there are different rule saying a manager is allowed to gamble.

The other thing Pat said was 'Pete admitted to it'. Ummmm well yeah, long after. He denied and denied. And then he said 'I bet but not on baseball'. And then it was 'I bet on baseball but not my team.' It wasn't until he figured that maybe admitting to it all would get him off the banned list that he admitted to it. Sorry but to me that doesn't buy him points. If he was honest from the start, maybe I'd cut him slack on that.

Yeah it is too bad that Pete has to sell his autograph to make money, but then, if he was in the Hall, he likely would be doing the same. But, the thing that Pete and his apologists don't understand, is it is all his fault. He knew the rules and he didn't think they applied to him.

0 recs | Comment 4 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

The only possible way betting on your own team to win would work is

If you have a standing bet of X amount of Dollars for your team to win on EVERY game. No exceptions. The bet would have to be placed at the beginning of the year and last for the entire season + playoffs. Considering no gambler would ever make a bet like that the issue changes.

However the whole thing is moot because there are (and were) explicit rules against it. You can point to the steroid users all you want but 1) There was no rules against them in baseball (just legally obtaining them) and 2) Steroid users would not be in such a position to be blackmailed.

Although technically I suppose it is possible that the users could be blackmailed as far as someone saying toss this game or I will go to the media with news about your steroids. But I see that as far less of problem then the potential in betting and getting down to a Bookie.

Life as a Toronto Sports Fan?... *sigh*... It is what it is...

by JohnnyG on Aug 24, 2009 11:49 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Weary of Pete Rose re-incarnations

Gambling can quickly and easily undermine the integrity of pro sports, a multi-billion industry, enjoyed by millions if not billions worldwide. It does not take a genious to figure this out. As such, there are tight restrictions against gambling by pro athletes.

Pro athletes get paid lots of money. They enjoy a (well-earned) privileged life. They have no economic reason to engage in sports gambling. It is asking very very very little of them to refrain from sports gambling.

Pete Rose flouted the rules and risked the very game that treated him so well throughout his years and for what – for modest economic gain to a guy who made great money in his career. It was an extremely foolish decision on Pete’s part. If Pete were a player of lesser or forgettable consequence to pro sports, would we ever continue to engage in the debate as to whether he deserves impunity? Heck no. But the fact that Pete would risk admittance to Hall of Fame only serves to underscore how foolish was his decision. More is the pity, but lesser is not the impropriety. No amount of time changes the culpability of Pete’s actions. It was an improper act decades ago as much as it is now. IMHO, the call stands, when it comes to Hall of Fame, Pete Rose, you are out!

Sorry buddy, still love ya, but take it like a man already! Really getting tired of the whining.

by aagoodfella on Aug 24, 2009 12:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Yes and Yes

The idea that the Pete Rose ban might be repealed would do a tremendous amount to damage baseball. Had it not been for the once in a century emergence of a player like Pete Rose, it is unlikely the current incarnation of professional baseball would have survived past the early 30s. Gambling, and the rigging of a game, do more to drive away fans than any single issue, because it automatically taints the entire system; a win doesn’t matter, a loss was already decided, the players cease to be important. For a player to bet on the game is despicable. For a manager to bet on a game is unconscionable.

Everyone knows why people want Rose in the Hall of Fame. He was the player who, like Ty Cobb, had modest skills powered by an absolute and ferocious drive to win at all costs. In doing so, he destroyed records, played dirty uniform style of running and fielding, played virtually every position, was scrappy and pugnacious, and matched it with a working class background. In short, he defined how guys like Reed Johnson and David Eckstein would be later described, but did it harder and better than anyone else.

But he bet on the game, and lied about it. There’s no ‘oops, I didn’t mean it’ any more. Some things need to be dealt with in the harshest manner possible. Was Pete Rose an evil man looking to destroy baseball? Of course not. Did he deliberate fix games in order to make money? I seriously would doubt that without evidence. But did he break what can arguably be considered the biggest taboo in the game at the time without concern? Yes.

As for steroids, I believe the integrity of the game was damaged, but the blame is not all on the players. Management and ownership did as much to encourage their use by looking the other way every chance they got, and I don’t think any aspect of the MLB doesn’t deserve a black mark in how it was handled. If the ownership, union, and Commissioner’s office had coordinated back in the early 90s, when the signs were already obvious enough that sports writers had noticed it, they could have put together a comprehensive plan that outlined accepted and banned substances, and started testing at that point. However, the beginning of the big boost in money and viewership, combined with the climbing HR totals made it in their financial benefit to look the other way.

by dexfarkin on Aug 24, 2009 1:31 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs