Every manager, coach, player, and who knows who else, signs a contract that states in no uncertain terms that if you bet on baseall you get banned for one year. If you bet on your own team, to win or lose, you are placed on the permanently ineligible list. There was suspicion that Pete bet on baseball, they investigated, Pete cut a deal.
If you want to know why Pete is permanently ineligible, then you should ask him since he was the one who signed the agreement.
Not necessarily. For example, let’s continue (sort of) zev’s example. My ace, Greg Maddux, starts game 130 or so of the season. We’re playing the Phillies, and we’re only three games ahead of them in the NL East (hey, it’s my example, I get to say who’s winning:D). I know that Greg’s arm has been troubling him for the past year or so, and when I see we’ve built a 2-0 lead and I know we’ll need him healthy for the rest of the season, so I stick a reliever in, knowing Greg is a better pitcher but also knowing that losing one game is not as bad as losing 2 or three Greg Maddux starts (which could happen if he hurts himself throwing the ball longer than he should be) … or more.
Or, to make it even more clear, let’s say I outright skip Greg’s start and put him on the DL and start Jason Marquis instead (very good pitcher, but IMO doesn’t yet have the consistency of Maddux). Where Greg had been pitching a shutout, Marquis lets in 3 runs and we lose. If I had been betting on my team to win, I probably stick Greg in there, maybe a little longer than I need him, just to make sure we win the game. But Greg goes on the DL next day and is out for a month. That’s at least 5 starts he misses, and maybe six. Another pitcher on my team probably isn’t going to have the same quality starts Greg would give us. I’ve just sacrificed five or six games (and in a close pennant race, to boot) for that one game I bet on.
It’s rather easy to fuxx0r your team for months in one game. And especially near the end of the season (and gearing up for the postseason), you want your stars as healthhy as possible. Having a pitcher who’s exhibited (in my scenario, at least), arm fatigue going eight innings is not conducive to keeping that pitcher healthy.
And I’m not even going to try to explain all the nuances of betting on your team to lose…
Finally: re: zev’s comment, not only is Pete Rose being obstinate, he’s being obstinate at the wrong people. His reinstatement need mean jack shit to the voters. IIRC They could vote in (picking someone at random here) former President Andrew Jackson if they wanted to (write-in, to be sure). Does anyone have a quick’n’easy reference to whatever criteria they look at to determine elibility for the Hall?
Not only that, iampunha, but the problem is that if a player or manager is gambling on his team to win or lose, and he loses his bet and gets into trouble, he may then be pressured (forced) into throwing a game in the future to repay his bookie. This probably wouldn’t have happened to Rose, but it could happen to a lesser star. It’s a bad idea, and baseball is right to have zero tolerance for it. Rose is scum.
It’s the reason why Vegas will probably never have a pro sports team (outside of the XFL, of course).
Which makes the WNBA allowing the Mohegan Sun to own a franchise even MORE bizarre.
Pete Rose lost a lot of money gambling on sports. I mean a LOT of money. To say that he “probably wouldn’t” have been pressured/told to start throwing particular games seems fairly optimistic.
Just because this sort of thing comes up often enough in my circle of (non-doper) friends, minty, do you happen to have a reference handy to back up the fact that Rose lose substantial amounts of money betting on sports? As much of a solid reputation as you have here, the name Minty Green isn’t exactly going to strike fear into the hearts of those who don’t know you from grienspace
Does not matter, herman_and_bill. And here’s something else for you to consider: even were he to be reinstated fully and allowed a position on some MLB team (farm or regular), that means jack shit in terms of his eligibility for the Hall. They are a body independent of MLB.
Just for the record, Barb and I have a table baseball game, with the element of chance provided by dice rolls, that fairly accurately mirrors the real-life performance of players, and we played out a season. I had the Giants. In mid-July, Barry Bonds was up to bat, got a “possible injury” roll, doubled, and injured himself for the rest of the season while sliding into second. Despite valiant efforts by Kent, Aurelia, Santiago, and a number of others to compensate for this loss, the Giants finished the season third in the NL West. As probably everyone reading this thread knows, that’s not how they finished in real life.
Hence zev’s point about whether having a player come up injured or not making a major difference in team results stuck home to me.
Well, what if your coach instructs you to make a sacrifice bunt in order to advance a runner? Do you do it and risk losing your bet, or do you swing for the fences even though it’s not in your team’s best interests?
Because, if enough money is on the line, what’s to stop him from colluding with other players to make sure he gets the first goal?
Even without collusion, what if there is a possibility he might score on a play but a much better chance of scoring if he passes the ball to a teammate. He may (because of the bet) attempt the goal himself instead of doing what he otherwise would and pass the ball.
OK. So he signed a contact agreeing to the lifetime exclusion. He broke the rules he had agreed to. By the book, he’s banned for life. But c’mon, public figures are given another shot all the time.
Is there any evidence that he indeed played guys he shouldn’t? Did he play pitchers too long in specific games? Is there a body of evidence that the team finished remarkably different in the standings than conventional “wisdom” or the betting line indicated?
If not, then they’re penalizing him for potential infractions. How is this different from potentially commiting a crime to actually committing one? How is this different from someone like Darryl Strawberry agreeing to quit drugs to continue playing, while volating this agreement time after time and being given a break time after time? Or Lawrence Taylor? Or you-name-it?
I don’t “get” the severity of this infraction. Depending on who you talk to, there are scumbags in any profession. In various halls of fame, at the tops of every profession and in every major sport.
Being a scumbag is not a good enough reason to exclude him.
But his natural ability as an athlete shouldn’t be enough to include him.
I present to you Mr. Buck Weaver. Weaver was a so-so player on the Chicago White Sox in 1919. Mr. Weaver knew that certain players on his team were conspiring to throw that year’s World Series to the Cincinnati Reds. Mr. Weaver was approached by the gamblers and rebuffed them. He took no money from the gamblers. However, he did not inform Charles Comiskey (the team’s owner) or anyone else of the plot. For this, he was banished from baseball in 1920, along with the players who actually did throw the Series. Mr. Weaver formally requested reinstatement every year, unsuccessfully, until his death in 1957.
If Buck Weaver, who never gambled on baseball and never threw a game; who’s only sin was one of omission, has not be allowed back into baseball’s good graces, why should Pete Rose, who’s sin is far more grevious? Is it because Rose was an amazing player while Weaver was only so-so? That should not be a factor.
