Ballplayers who use PEDS undeniably affect the outcome of ballgames. I’m not seeing anyone arguing against punishing them, and trying to keep our national pastime free from performance enhancing drugs. I got to thinking about Pete Rose, who would, of course, be a lock for the HOF if not for his lifetime suspension for gambling. He gambled when he was a player, I believe, and I remember for sure he placed bets on ballgames he was managing (always for his team to win, however). If I recall correctly, nothing he did ever changed the outcome of a game, and that was never alleged.
I wasn’t much of a Rose fan, since I’m True Blue, but no doubt you have to recognize his excellence.
Braun gets to keep his MVP. Shouldn’t Pete be inducted to the HOF while he’s alive to see it?
The argument is that while he always bet on the Reds to win, there’s still plenty he can do to affect the game down the line. For instance, he can leave his star pitcher in for too long, risking injury. Or bring a middle reliever in on not enough rest. Or not take a limping star hitter out of the game.
But you did see people remain silent for 40 years regarding that issue. Not sure what changed - did people just hate Barry Bonds *that *much?
I guess I’m assuming that betting on the game wouldn’t change his desire to win ballgames - as manager, with his job on the line, he’s already way motivated. But maybe. But even Bonds, McGuire and the rest of them were *on the ballot *for the HOF, and we know for a stone-cold fact that all those illicit dingers changed outcomes.
I think what changed was testing got sophisticated enough to start catching guys. Also, I don’t think greenies, back in the day, had as big an impact. Bouton wrote that he thought it gave him maybe another 5%, but may have impaired his judgement enough that it was about a wash.
Are they any more illicit than any of the stats people from 1960 and on put up while hopped up on amphetamines? If not, why not?
Edit: And what about the pitchers on PEDs throwing to Bonds, McGwire and the rest of them?
If Pete Rose really wanted to rehabilitate his public image and improve his chances for reinstatement (or at least Cooperstown eligibility), there are a number of things he could be doing. He could be putting on clinics for little leagues when he’s in the area for signings. He could be donating a set percentage of his memorabilia income to BATS or the United Way or some gambling rehab organization. Instead, his highest-profile post-baseball personal appearances have been in pro wrestling. Forget Cooperstown; he’s in the WWE Hall of Fame.
I know a bunch of you will scream that Rose’s post-banning deportment is irrelevant. In an utterly rational world, that would be true. In this world, not so much.
That, and Rose got to keep his MVP as well. No records have been changed or asterixed; he’s just out of organized baseball.
Not only no, but fucking hell no! That SOB should rot. I’d deny him entry into the HOF forever, but if sissies want to let him in, I would insist that it be the day after they bury the bastard.
I also think Braun should be stripped of his MVP.
Munch, yeah, I don’t think there’s much doubt PEDs had more impact that greenies. So are you arguing all should be allowed, disallowed, I’m unclear as to larger point/position?
If his bets were always for his team to win, what do the bookies think if he doesn’t bet on the game that day?
There is also the historical aspect of gambling and baseball. Cheating at playing the game through PEDs or spitballs or stealing signals is not seen as having the kind of impact that gambling, and the resulting game fixing would have.
Silenus, would you also argue then that Braun, should he have a spectacular post-suspension career with no further positive tests, be banned from consideration for the HOF? Or allowed on the ballot, and voters can decide?
Please show your work.
I’m arguing that the manufactured outrage over PEDs nowadays is laughable in the face of over 40 years of blatant amphetamine abuse, and other forms of romanticized cheaters (some of whom are in the Hall of Fame).
Yeah, but I don’t think anyone is actually alleging there were any thrown games. Hell, stealing signs can have a hell of an impact (ask Bobby Thompson!) So I guess I would argue that PEDs, spitballs, etc should be viewed as worse than betting on your own team to win, with no evidence any game outcomes were affected.
There’s a ringing endorsement of the usefulness baseball managers. 
No. The bottom line is this, to me: no matter how you bet, betting on baseball while you are participating in the sport affects the integrity of the game. If you’re Major League Baseball, you can’t allow that.
Here, I’ll start. This is an interesting article from 2010 with several quotes from unnamed major league execs stating that greenies had a far greater effect on the game than steroids ever did. I think as the sample sizes as the seasons progress gets larger, we’re going to start seeing strong analysis of what the amphetamine ban has done.
Of course they are alleging that. There were also allegations that he bet against his own team. He was deeply in debt to bookies, but they continued to accept his bets. Why would that be?
I’m not arguing about which is worse, gambling or PEDs, it’s just the historical angle.
[quote=“Munch, post:10, topic:664515”]
Please show your work.
Ruth set the homer record of 60 in 1927. Maris broke it by one, in a longer season, in 1961, 34 years later. Then google home-run records in any terminology you like, and note how over-represented players are in the PEDs era, and by much greater amounts.
I don’t think there’s much doubt about it.
I’ve never heard any rational explanation for considering a difference between the use of steroids and amphetamines. They are both PEDs. I think amphetamine usage was actually a bigger problem since it was known, and ignored.
Frankly, I don’t care if athletes use PEDs, as long as it’s a level playing field (and if no crime is committed as a lesser factor). But that’s not the way things turned out. In the end run people will know that the record books reflect the era. Barry Bonds will never be considered in the same category as Aaron or Ruth. McGwire and Sosa won’t be considered to be in the same category as Ruth and Maris. And the Hall of Fame will reflect that also.
Congrats - you’ve found a sample of three. Now lets look at the list of players who have been caught using PEDs, and checking out their power numbers:
2005: Alex Sanchez (2HR/62G); Rafael Palmiero (18HR/110G); Mike Morse (3HR/72G)
2007: Nefi Perez (1HR/33G); Jose Guillen (23HR/153G); Jay Gibbons (6HR/84G)
2008: Eliezer Alfonzo (0HR/5G)
2009: Manny Ramirez (19HR/104G)
2011: Manny Ramirez (0HR/5G);
2012: Freddy Galvis (3HR/58G); Melky Cabrera (11HR/113G)
2013: Ryan Braun (9HR/61G)
Dang, that’s 95 homeruns in…855 games? Quite the effect. Now, tell me why we’re seeing far fewer day games before travel days, why production is plummeting in the later part of the season compared to pre-amphetamine ban, and why pitchers’ complete games and innings pitched skyrocketed at the introduction of amphetamines - and why that did not “affect the game”.
Using only HRs as a benchmark for “affecting the game” is cute.
“but they continued to accept his bets. Why would that be?”
Well, bookies do that, of course. I’m not arguing that gambling is OK, or even insignificant. I want the game to be as pure as possible. I’m suggesting that by the evidence of what has actually impacted games more significantly, Rule 61 may be punishing Rose somewhat disproportionately compared to PEDs, which clearly did moreso, I think. There was, of course, the *suspicion *that Rose could have blown games due to his gambling, and I think that’s a very real issue to be investigated. It was, and wasn’t substantiated to any degree, I don’t think. Gambling by umpires and refs seems to be more problematic to me, in any case.
If we want to talk amphetamines in decades past, I’m not sure that’s very on-point to my OP, but then my question is: do we retroactively strip records for suspicions we can never prove? (of course not). So do we then respect all the records of the PEDs era because of greenies in the 60s?
Oh, seriously? You want me to give credence that Manny Ramirez hit only 19 HRs when he was using PEDs? Dude, I’m a Dodger fan, I know better, those numbers stink, even if they may be technically accurate (lying with statistics, and all that). Anyway, I’m not sure how your bringing up greenies is related to my OP, exactly. Or are you arguing that PEDs didn’t dramatically increase HR production?
BTW, that’s not a sample size of three, that’s a sample size of all the men who played baseball between the 1920s to current day)
Yeah, he doesn’t really help anything by being kind of a jerk. I say that as a Cincinnatian born, who was there when he hit 4192, who, like all good Cincinnatians, defended him right until he finally admitted it. As it stands, he’ll go in after he dies, and maybe a long while after. His behavior inevitably reflects badly on baseball in general, because he, like it or not, is a representative of it. Folks may hesitate to induct a guy who they personally can remember clearly being a jerk.