completely off topic but...
-
@Untchable704 said in completely off topic but...:
@DriveByTrucker17 said in completely off topic but...:
@Untchable704 said in completely off topic but...:
@DriveByTrucker17 said in completely off topic but...:
@Untchable704 said in completely off topic but...:
Nope and nope to the steroid users. Anybody stealing signs is fine.
Knowing what pitch is coming gives a much bigger advantage than steroids.
The stats say that isn’t true eh.
Bonds, arod, McGwire, etc., were all better than any astros player before using roids. You still have to be good enough to hit when using roids. If I know a fastball is guaranteed to be coming, it gets much easier. MLB players have said this as well.
It’s called recency bias. Nothing more.
It’s not recency bias. It’s a situational difference. Sign stealing happens in situations throughout the season. Sometimes signs can be stolen, sometimes they can’t. PEDs usage is done throughout the whole season.
Think of it in a vacuum. If a player knew what pitch was coming every single time, in every single at bat, for the whole season, that player would out perform the same version of that player on PEDs without the knowledge of what pitch was coming.
Look at the results the Astros posted when Glasnow was tipping his pitches. Those results were far greater than the results of a PED user. The difference is that the effects only lasted a few innings because Glasnow was pulled. As soon as the Astros didn’t know what pitch was coming, they didn’t have the same success. PED benefits wouldn’t stop because of a pitching change.
-
rose shouldn't be in the hall while he's alive especially if the newish rumor of him corking his bats is true. I have less of a problem with steroid era guys mostly because we can't pretend that entire era of baseball never happened we just make some note of it such as the dead ball era. Sign stealing to me is fine if the players were the ones who did it truly on their own ie runner on 2nd can decode the catchers signs but if you need the help of a nerd in the front office or video room he's not in uniform and should honestly not be in the stadium since he can do his job from his living room the day after
-
You know, if he hadn't acted like such an indignant [censored] for the last 30 years he would have had a much better chance of getting in.
-
@SchnauzerFace said in completely off topic but...:
@EvylShaun said in completely off topic but...:
My understanding is he gambled while managing, not while playing. Pete Rose is not a hall of fame calibre manager, he is a hall of fame calibre player.
I feel like that’s kinda splitting hairs.
That's exactly what it is. Lol. It's more of a debate topic than anything else. It is actually the way I feel about it however. If he were a hall of fame manager like Larussa, Sparky, or Torre maybe. But let's be honest, the man is one of the greatest of all time, and a ban on MLB affiliation has no bearing on his status within the game as a whole.
-
Did Rose ever bet against his own team? If not, then I see no reason to keep him out. Betting against yourself clearly provides a motive to intentionally do worse, and there should be consequences for that. Betting on your own team only provides more motivation to do what you go out to do every game: Win. Betting on games you aren't involved in is perfectly fine
-
@ryansitko11 said in completely off topic but...:
Did Rose ever bet against his own team? If not, then I see no reason to keep him out. Betting against yourself clearly provides a motive to intentionally do worse, and there should be consequences for that. Betting on your own team only provides more motivation to do what you go out to do every game: Win. Betting on games you aren't involved in is perfectly fine
Betting on games you aren’t involved is not perfectly fine when the league has specifically said ANY gambling on games will result in a lifetime ban — period.
Steve Stone (White Sox announcer) had a great point about this: if Pete bet on his team 4 nights in a row, what message does that send his bookie when he doesn’t bet on the 5th night? The manager is going to have inside info (i.e. the closer has a tummy ache, the DH has a strained bicep, the Star outfielder is going to get a rest day, etc etc), and that kind of garbage needs to stay far, far away from unsavory gambling types. Further, if you look way way way back in baseball history (watch the Ken Burns doc), the sport has a long, disturbing early history with gambling and fixing games. It’s best to keep players and managers as far, far away from gambling and bookies (and potentially organized crime) as humanly possible.
-
@SchnauzerFace said in completely off topic but...:
@ryansitko11 said in completely off topic but...:
Did Rose ever bet against his own team? If not, then I see no reason to keep him out. Betting against yourself clearly provides a motive to intentionally do worse, and there should be consequences for that. Betting on your own team only provides more motivation to do what you go out to do every game: Win. Betting on games you aren't involved in is perfectly fine
Betting on games you aren’t involved is not perfectly fine when the league has specifically said ANY gambling on games will result in a lifetime ban — period.
Steve Stone (White Sox announcer) had a great point about this: if Pete bet on his team 4 nights in a row, what message does that send his bookie when he doesn’t bet on the 5th night? The manager is going to have inside info (i.e. the closer has a tummy ache, the DH has a strained bicep, the Star outfielder is going to get a rest day, etc etc), and that kind of garbage needs to stay far, far away from unsavory gambling types. Further, if you look way way way back in baseball history (watch the Ken Burns doc), the sport has a long, disturbing early history with gambling and fixing games. It’s best to keep players and managers as far, far away from gambling and bookies (and potentially organized crime) as humanly possible.
I understand where the MLB was coming from with that policy, but I don't really agree with it. And I understand why Pete is facing the consequences for it still. He broke the rules that were set. I just disagree with the rule itself. The way I see it, as long as you aren't betting against yourself, and no one else is in on it (which may be difficult), you're fine
As for Steve Stone's comment, I can definitely see how that could effect bookmaking odds, but does that effect the integrity of the game? I don't really see how it does
-
I think what he did was was not as bad as what the roid guys did and I am a Reds fan.
But there were no rules against roids and what Pete was a long established number one rule to get banned. So in my opinion neither he nor the roid guys should get in.
With that said they will all get in eventually, Rose long after he dies, Bonds and Clemens will at some point.
-
@ryansitko11 said in completely off topic but...:
@SchnauzerFace said in completely off topic but...:
@ryansitko11 said in completely off topic but...:
Did Rose ever bet against his own team? If not, then I see no reason to keep him out. Betting against yourself clearly provides a motive to intentionally do worse, and there should be consequences for that. Betting on your own team only provides more motivation to do what you go out to do every game: Win. Betting on games you aren't involved in is perfectly fine
Betting on games you aren’t involved is not perfectly fine when the league has specifically said ANY gambling on games will result in a lifetime ban — period.
Steve Stone (White Sox announcer) had a great point about this: if Pete bet on his team 4 nights in a row, what message does that send his bookie when he doesn’t bet on the 5th night? The manager is going to have inside info (i.e. the closer has a tummy ache, the DH has a strained bicep, the Star outfielder is going to get a rest day, etc etc), and that kind of garbage needs to stay far, far away from unsavory gambling types. Further, if you look way way way back in baseball history (watch the Ken Burns doc), the sport has a long, disturbing early history with gambling and fixing games. It’s best to keep players and managers as far, far away from gambling and bookies (and potentially organized crime) as humanly possible.
I understand where the MLB was coming from with that policy, but I don't really agree with it. And I understand why Pete is facing the consequences for it still. He broke the rules that were set. I just disagree with the rule itself. The way I see it, as long as you aren't betting against yourself, and no one else is in on it (which may be difficult), you're fine
As for Steve Stone's comment, I can definitely see how that could effect bookmaking odds, but does that effect the integrity of the game? I don't really see how it does
Betting on a game that you can influence can’t be allowed in any way whatsoever. Stone’s comments relate to the message it sends to bookies, but they’re still relevant.
While it may seem inconsequential to bet in your team’s favour, that’s completely incorrect. When you have the power to influence the decisions made within the game, you can use that power for your own interests.
As @SchnauzerFace mentioned, if Rose knows the closer has a tummy ache or the DH has a strained bicep, his decisions can be influenced by his personal stake in the game. The reasons he could choose not to place a bet are the same reasons he could manipulate the lineup for personal gain. He can start a player that needs rest or push a player to play through injury because it’s more important to win a game on which he’s placed a bet. Rather than making decisions for the long term success of the team, he can make in game decisions to win a game at greater costs to the team/players. Betting on his team can lead to damaging decisions to preserve his interests outside of the game.
Up to this point, we’ve only been focusing on game outcomes. What about prop bets? Suppose Rose placed a prop bet for the starting pitcher to strikeout 8 batters. Is it not more likely for Rose to keep the starter in until he’s reached Rose’s goal, perhaps to the player’s detriment? Betting in any form cannot be tolerated.
The rule is no betting. For/against your team is of no consequence. No betting. Period. He bet.
-
Rose should be in as all his accomplishments were prior to his gambling. Also, though it may be apples and oranges, the fact that the Astros got a slap on the wrist but Shoeless Joe is banned is bs
-
@ilvmyjeep said in completely off topic but...:
@ryansitko11 said in completely off topic but...:
@SchnauzerFace said in completely off topic but...:
@ryansitko11 said in completely off topic but...:
Did Rose ever bet against his own team? If not, then I see no reason to keep him out. Betting against yourself clearly provides a motive to intentionally do worse, and there should be consequences for that. Betting on your own team only provides more motivation to do what you go out to do every game: Win. Betting on games you aren't involved in is perfectly fine
Betting on games you aren’t involved is not perfectly fine when the league has specifically said ANY gambling on games will result in a lifetime ban — period.
Steve Stone (White Sox announcer) had a great point about this: if Pete bet on his team 4 nights in a row, what message does that send his bookie when he doesn’t bet on the 5th night? The manager is going to have inside info (i.e. the closer has a tummy ache, the DH has a strained bicep, the Star outfielder is going to get a rest day, etc etc), and that kind of garbage needs to stay far, far away from unsavory gambling types. Further, if you look way way way back in baseball history (watch the Ken Burns doc), the sport has a long, disturbing early history with gambling and fixing games. It’s best to keep players and managers as far, far away from gambling and bookies (and potentially organized crime) as humanly possible.
I understand where the MLB was coming from with that policy, but I don't really agree with it. And I understand why Pete is facing the consequences for it still. He broke the rules that were set. I just disagree with the rule itself. The way I see it, as long as you aren't betting against yourself, and no one else is in on it (which may be difficult), you're fine
As for Steve Stone's comment, I can definitely see how that could effect bookmaking odds, but does that effect the integrity of the game? I don't really see how it does
Betting on a game that you can influence can’t be allowed in any way whatsoever. Stone’s comments relate to the message it sends to bookies, but they’re still relevant.
While it may seem inconsequential to bet in your team’s favour, that’s completely incorrect. When you have the power to influence the decisions made within the game, you can use that power for your own interests.
As @SchnauzerFace mentioned, if Rose knows the closer has a tummy ache or the DH has a strained bicep, his decisions can be influenced by his personal stake in the game. The reasons he could choose not to place a bet are the same reasons he could manipulate the lineup for personal gain. He can start a player that needs rest or push a player to play through injury because it’s more important to win a game on which he’s placed a bet. Rather than making decisions for the long term success of the team, he can make in game decisions to win a game at greater costs to the team/players. Betting on his team can lead to damaging decisions to preserve his interests outside of the game.
Up to this point, we’ve only been focusing on game outcomes. What about prop bets? Suppose Rose placed a prop bet for the starting pitcher to strikeout 8 batters. Is it not more likely for Rose to keep the starter in until he’s reached Rose’s goal, perhaps to the player’s detriment? Betting in any form cannot be tolerated.
The rule is no betting. For/against your team is of no consequence. No betting. Period. He bet.
That's a great point by @SchnauzerFace. I can admit when I'm wrong and I'll say you've convinced me. I honestly didn't even realize that Rose was the manager when he placed the bets. I'm young and never fully read up on the situation until now. Never considered prop bets either, although I'm not really sure how prevalent those were back then
-
Rose yes because he never cheated. Bonds and Clemens are the only 2 steroid users who should be allowed in the hall because they are the two greatest on their side of the ball of all time.
-
A admin locked this topic on
