Pete Rose

[Guest]

Okay, Pierre was overstating my case.

 

Would you put Olerud into the hall of fame if he had the durability and longevity of Pete? Olerud was a better hitter when on the field and played a fantastic first base.

 

I don't remember him being called one of the greats, though...

 

Well, it's not Olerud's fault that he was underrated his entire career - people looked too much at HRs and RBI and not enough at OBP. But regardless of this - yes, Olerud might have had a chance if he'd played as long.

 

What he has working against him, however, is that even though he got on base a lot and had a good OPS+, his proficiency at the plate never really translated into huge offensive production. Only once was he in the top 10 in his league in runs, and he never placed in the top 10 in RBI. He only ranked in the top 10 of his league twice in runs created. According to Bill James' book, his win shares per 162 games was 22.92 in 1999. Out of his next six years, only two were above his career average (in terms of OPS+), and his last three were sharply below his career average, so one can guess that his WS/162 over his career is probably closer to 21.

 

Rose's WS/162 is 24.80, meaning he was a more productive player over the course of his career than Olerud was, and while longevity shouldn't count for everything, it should count, and clearly Rose has a big advantage there. He also played 628 games at 2B and 634 games at 3B, which are positions from which less offense is expected than a first baseman. Rose ranked first or second in times on base 14 times during his major league career.

 

I mean, Rickey Henderson's OPS+ was worse than Olerud; it was 9 points higher than Rose's, and he played a superior offensive position for much of his career. Plus, he was a lousy fielder. Should we also debate whether he belongs in the Hall?

 

Rose's career WS/162 ranks right there with guys like Yastrzemski, Stargell, Billy Williams, Gwynn, Clemente, Reggie Jackson and Kaline. A lot of people may not like him for who he is, and that's fine, but to debate whether his playing career is Hall-worthy is borderline ridiculous.

I hate win shares.

 

Also, after reflection (and apparently while you were typing your response) I deleted the quoted post and put the post in about Molitor instead. My position isn't really that Rose's numbers are short of HOF-worthy. However, I also don't see his numbers qualifying him as a no-doubt, inner-circle, one of the greatest of all time players, either.

 

Part of my position is that you cannot separate Rose-the-man from Rose-the-number-producer. The fact is that gambling on your own team is the ultimate sin in team sports and calls the entire integrity of the sport into question. There can be no room for leniency with gamblers. This is highlighted by the relative punishments for gambling vs. ped's.

 

We know Rose bet on his own team when he was managing. Given that knowledge and what it implies about his ethics as a person and what he could have done as a player, combined with his caring more about personal records than what was best for the team...his numbers do not overwhelm me enough to cast aside my doubts about the man.

 

 

 

btw - Bonds, on the other hand, I'd vote for every opportunity I got. His numbers qualify him as one of the best five player of all time. There is certainly good reason to believe that some of that performance was unfairly aided. But he never committed the ultimate sin of the sport and was always a great player -- with or without roids.

[TruffleShuffle]

But he never committed the ultimate sin of the sport and was always a great player -- with or without roids.

 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on what the ultimate sin of the sport is. I find cheating to become a better player more unethical than betting on the team that one manages.

[goonys evil twin]

But he never committed the ultimate sin of the sport and was always a great player -- with or without roids.

 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on what the ultimate sin of the sport is. I find cheating to become a better player more unethical than betting on the team that one manages.

 

The difference is just about everybody cheats in one way shape or form, while betting is quite different.

[OleMissCub]

But he never committed the ultimate sin of the sport and was always a great player -- with or without roids.

 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on what the ultimate sin of the sport is. I find cheating to become a better player more unethical than betting on the team that one manages.

 

The difference is just about everybody cheats in one way shape or form, while betting is quite different.

 

Betting that your team will win doesn't seem to me to be all that horrible. Now, of course, if you bet that you will lose and throw the game or something like that, then that's certainly a bannable offense.

[goonys evil twin]

But he never committed the ultimate sin of the sport and was always a great player -- with or without roids.

 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on what the ultimate sin of the sport is. I find cheating to become a better player more unethical than betting on the team that one manages.

 

The difference is just about everybody cheats in one way shape or form, while betting is quite different.

 

Betting that your team will win doesn't seem to me to be all that horrible. Now, of course, if you bet that you will lose and throw the game or something like that, then that's certainly a bannable offense.

 

It's quite naive to think betting for your team is harmless. If you had money on your team to win one game, the effort you make to win that game might be something that costs your team in the long haul. Likewise, any losses could put you at risk of being susceptible to the influence of the type of people who are taking these bets. It's very smart for legitimate sports leagues to ban gambling on their own sports, the results of such dealings could be devastating.

[OleMissCub]

But he never committed the ultimate sin of the sport and was always a great player -- with or without roids.

 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on what the ultimate sin of the sport is. I find cheating to become a better player more unethical than betting on the team that one manages.

 

The difference is just about everybody cheats in one way shape or form, while betting is quite different.

 

Betting that your team will win doesn't seem to me to be all that horrible. Now, of course, if you bet that you will lose and throw the game or something like that, then that's certainly a bannable offense.

 

It's quite naive to think betting for your team is harmless. If you had money on your team to win one game, the effort you make to win that game might be something that costs your team in the long haul. Likewise, any losses could put you at risk of being susceptible to the influence of the type of people who are taking these bets. It's very smart for legitimate sports leagues to ban gambling on their own sports, the results of such dealings could be devastating.

 

I certainly understand the rationale behind why leagues ban gambling, such as those you've laid out. But personally, I just think it's sad that a man who bet on his own team to win is banned forever. Rules are rules I suppose.

[goonys evil twin]

I certainly understand the rationale behind why leagues ban gambling, such as those you've laid out. But personally, I just think it's sad that a man who bet on his own team to win is banned forever. Rules are rules I suppose.

 

I don't get what's so sad. He made his own bed, and agreed to the punishment. This isn't some heavy handed monarch ruling against a poor shlub who was trying to feed his family.

[Guest]

But he never committed the ultimate sin of the sport and was always a great player -- with or without roids.

 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on what the ultimate sin of the sport is. I find cheating to become a better player more unethical than betting on the team that one manages.

So every ball-scuffer, bat-corker, spit-baller, sign-stealer, speed-taker and so forth are all more heinous to the game than people that gamble on their own team?

 

Really?

[TruffleShuffle]

But he never committed the ultimate sin of the sport and was always a great player -- with or without roids.

 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on what the ultimate sin of the sport is. I find cheating to become a better player more unethical than betting on the team that one manages.

So every ball-scuffer, bat-corker, spit-baller, sign-stealer, speed-taker and so forth are all more heinous to the game than people that gamble on their own team?

 

Really?

 

I find those to be more minor than injecting yourself with a foreign substance (that's illegal, by the way) to increase muscle mass.

[ConstableRabbit]

I certainly understand the rationale behind why leagues ban gambling, such as those you've laid out. But personally, I just think it's sad that a man who bet on his own team to win is banned forever. Rules are rules I suppose.

 

I don't get what's so sad. He made his own bed, and agreed to the punishment. This isn't some heavy handed monarch ruling against a poor shlub who was trying to feed his family.

 

That's a big part of it in my opinion. He may have been able to make a stronger argument if he hadn't already agreed.

[NCCubFan]

I think gambling on your team is inexcusable. It puts you in a position to make moves to win the game you bet on, even if it hurts the team in the long run (such as leaving a tired starter in too long because you distrust the bullpen).

[tkenm356]

I'm unfamiliar with the entire story of his gambling woes. Did he do this solely as a manager, as I've come to understand over these years, or as a player as well?

 

If he did it only as a manager, then why does it matter? He's not deserving to go into the HOF as a manager, but as a player. And as one of the greatest players in the history of the game at that.

 

He deserves to go in.

 

That's like a lot of these media writers talking about Bonds going to the Hall. A lot of them say "Bonds was a lock for the Hall of Fame before he started bulking up so I think he deserves to go for that". Was Rose not deserving to go to the HOF before he started betting on baseball?

[Omar]

I believe Rose will get in.. dead or alive.. but if you have 4,000+ hits, you're getting in.

 

I find funny he makes the WWE Hall of Fame before the baseball..

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I find it funny that there is a WWE HOF.

[SouthSideRyan]

Betting on your own team is definitely detrimental. Not just for the reasons already stated about going all out to win that one game and costing yourself for the future. But what are you telling your bookie when you bet on your team for 3 games in a row and then don't bet on the 4th. It's not betting against your team, but it sure as hell is giving a tip to your hookup as to how that game's gonna end.

[OleMissCub]

I find it funny that there is a WWE HOF.

 

It's STILL REAL TO ME DAMNIT!!!!

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I find it funny that there is a WWE HOF.

 

It's STILL REAL TO ME DAMNIT!!!!

 

:lmao:

[Guest]

He's not deserving to go into the HOF as a manager, but as a player. And as one of the greatest players in the history of the game at that.

Pete Rose was Paul Molitor-level good. He was not even remotely close to the best player of his era, let alone of all time.

[tkenm356]

He's not deserving to go into the HOF as a manager, but as a player. And as one of the greatest players in the history of the game at that.

Pete Rose was Paul Molitor-level good. He was not even remotely close to the best player of his era, let alone of all time.

 

I see what you're saying. I never actually examined his stats until now. I just assumed with all those hits, it led to high batting averages, which he only had a .303 career one. I was using gorilla logic.

 

Regardless, I stil lthink he deserves to go. If you hold a career record in any major statistic I think those people should be admitted. It just doesn't make sense to not include them to me. It's not like gambling gave him enhanced super abilities like steroids do.

[Guest]

Contrary to popular belief, steroids don't really give players "enhanced super abilities". There are plenty of ordinary players that took steroids that stayed ordinary players. Just ask Alex Sanchez.

[soccer10k]

Contrary to popular belief, steroids don't really give players "enhanced super abilities". There are plenty of ordinary players that took steroids that stayed ordinary players. Just ask Alex Sanchez.

 

If used correctly steroids can help out a player a lot though.

[Guest]

Contrary to popular belief, steroids don't really give players "enhanced super abilities". There are plenty of ordinary players that took steroids that stayed ordinary players. Just ask Alex Sanchez.

 

If used correctly steroids can help out a player a lot though.

Well, there is some anecdotal evidence of that, but I haven't seen anything that systematically goes about trying to show how much of a benefit they provide.

[TruffleShuffle]

Contrary to popular belief, steroids don't really give players "enhanced super abilities". There are plenty of ordinary players that took steroids that stayed ordinary players. Just ask Alex Sanchez.

 

If used correctly steroids can help out a player a lot though.

Well, there is some anecdotal evidence of that, but I haven't seen anything that systematically goes about trying to show how much of a benefit they provide.

 

Well, there's also no proof that Pete Rose did anything different in the games that he bet on the Reds.

[Chocolate Milk]

Contrary to popular belief, steroids don't really give players "enhanced super abilities". There are plenty of ordinary players that took steroids that stayed ordinary players. Just ask Alex Sanchez.

 

If used correctly steroids can help out a player a lot though.

 

In what ways can they be used incorrectly?

[soccer10k]

Contrary to popular belief, steroids don't really give players "enhanced super abilities". There are plenty of ordinary players that took steroids that stayed ordinary players. Just ask Alex Sanchez.

 

If used correctly steroids can help out a player a lot though.

 

In what ways can they be used incorrectly?

 

It's not necessarily incorrectly. I made a post on this a couple months ago in a Barry Bonds thread.

 

If you take steroids and just sit around all day and don't work out, they aren't going to help you too much. You have to actually go and work out. That's why when these guys that get bulked up claim "they spent a lot of time in the weight room over the winter" are probably telling the truth. It's likely that they did spend a ton of time in the weight room. The thing they leave out is that they wouldn't necessarily been able to spend that much time if they weren't taking steroids.

 

Obviously I don't know how Alex Sanchez took steroids or why he did it, and like I said "incorrect" was probably the wrong word to use, but I would guess that he didn't utilize the full potential of steroids. That and he wasn't a good baseball player.