Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

The Harsh

Should Pete Rose be Allowed to Manage?

Should Pete Rose be Allowed to Manage?  

107 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Pete Rose be Allowed to Manage?

    • Yes
      53
    • No
      54


Recommended Posts

He only changed his stance when he realized denying wasn't getting him back into baseball.

PED's affect individuals. It tarnished individual records. Gambling affects the game itself. We have no idea how many games were affected as a result of Rose's bets. If you can't see the distinction then I don't know what to tell you.

Well, I'm glad we can agree on the fact his attitude did change.

What do you think people will remember more? The home run record, or any other significant feat, or how the Reds came in 2nd place in their division 25 years ago?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I'm glad we can agree on the fact his attitude did change.

What do you think people will remember more? The home run record, or any other significant feat, or how the Reds came in 2nd place in their division 25 years ago?

His attitude didn't change. His stance did. And it frequently changes to support his latest claim.

Who cares about what's more memorable? What's important is the unpredictability in baseball. A gambling manager fixing his own team to win his bet is not something most of us would watch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
His attitude didn't change. His stance did. And it frequently changes to support his latest claim.

Who cares about what's more memorable? What's important is the unpredictability in baseball. A gambling manager fixing his own team to win his bet is not something most of us would watch.

Main Entry: attitude

Part of Speech: noun

Definition: stance

dictionary.com B)

And, once again, you revert to delusions of foresight. I thought we were making progress. And a lot of people - or, you know, so television ratings during the single-season home run chase would have you believe - care about what's more memorable, hence it being memorable... Honestly, yoda, your arguments aren't very convincing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His attitude all along has been that baseball owes him to give him another chance. His initial stance was deny, deny, deny for years but when that didn't get him back into baseball, he admitted to it. That's the best way I can describe Rose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As we approach 100 votes, it's almost dead even. This is very interesting to me because I was expecting more lopsided results, though I didn't know which way it would go. Great input by everyone so far!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As we approach 100 votes, it's almost dead even. This is very interesting to me because I was expecting more lopsided results, though I didn't know which way it would go. Great input by everyone so far!

Time heals. You take this poll in the 90s, I'll bet most would vote "no". Same thing will happen with the steroid era. It will be more fascinating in the future because we may know what exactly those drugs did to their body.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Time heals. You take this poll in the 90s, I'll bet most would vote "no". Same thing will happen with the steroid era. It will be more fascinating in the future because we may know what exactly those drugs did to their body.

Yeah, most likely this is the situation. We already know what steroids do to the body. What'll be more interesting is, considering how far ahead the underground markets are vs. the current anti-drug implementations, what sort of things athletes will get their hands on next. Considering the finding of the CCR5 gene (a mutation, most likely, developed sometime around the Black Plague or during the smallpox outbreak), there's no limit to what our bodies may hold that can be taken advantage of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He only changed his stance when he realized denying wasn't getting him back into baseball.

PED's affect individuals. It tarnished individual records. Gambling affects the game itself. We have no idea how many games were affected as a result of Rose's bets. If you can't see the distinction then I don't know what to tell you.

Yoda, I totally agree with your stance on Rose, but I don't see how you can make this statement. If you conclude that individual records were tarnished by PEDs but it didn't affect the game itself, do you think that all those extra stats happened in a vacuum, without changing the outcomes of games? How is that possible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yoda, I totally agree with your stance on Rose, but I don't see how you can make this statement. If you conclude that individual records were tarnished by PEDs but it didn't affect the game itself, do you think that all those extra stats happened in a vacuum, without changing the outcomes of games? How is that possible?

Because if everyone's using, presumably nobody gains an advantage relative to their competition. They do of course gain an advantage in comparison to previous eras.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because if everyone's using, presumably nobody gains an advantage relative to their competition. They do of course gain an advantage in comparison to previous eras.

But not everyone's using. If you're going to make that assumption (and it's a pretty big one), you might as well go ahead and assume that all managers have a little side wager on their games, or even some players for that matter. Everyone gambles a little now and then, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a reasonable doubt that every MLB player is using and every manager/owner gambles. The commissioner of baseball is a pawn as the league is really ran by the mob. This is why Congress needed to be involved on drug testing a while back as it was a much bigger issue than what they disclosed to the public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But not everyone's using. If you're going to make that assumption (and it's a pretty big one), you might as well go ahead and assume that all managers have a little side wager on their games, or even some players for that matter. Everyone gambles a little now and then, right?

What?

One manager (Pete Rose) in the last 50 years was shown to have bet on baseball. He admitted as much.

A much, much larger percentage of players used PEDs in the last 15 years. The exact number isn't known, but look at how long the Mitchell list is and tell me you don't think it was widespread. Remember, those are just the people who got caught.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What?

One manager (Pete Rose) in the last 50 years was shown to have bet on baseball. He admitted as much.

A much, much larger percentage of players used PEDs in the last 15 years. The exact number isn't known, but look at how long the Mitchell list is and tell me you don't think it was widespread. Remember, those are just the people who got caught.

And there you have it. You can't just make the leap from "widespread" to "everyone" without facts. And even if you guess high and it's 75% using and 25% not, that still significantly affects the outcomes of games beyond just individual records... which was my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And there you have it. You can't just make the leap from "widespread" to "everyone" without facts. And even if you guess high and it's 75% using and 25% not, that still significantly affects the outcomes of games beyond just individual records... which was my point.

There's a difference between having hard proof of widespread use and assuming the usage was even more widespread, and having evidence of one manager betting on baseball and assuming it's widespread.

Yes, not everyone used. But the usage was widespread enough that I believe it is a reasonable assumption that all teams benefited in one instance or another.

The conversation about PEDs is old hat, anyway. People have been enhancing performance for years, but you don't see anyone calling for Gaylord Perry to be kicked out of the HoF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's a difference between having hard proof of widespread use and assuming the usage was even more widespread, and having evidence of one manager betting on baseball and assuming it's widespread.

Yes, not everyone used. But the usage was widespread enough that I believe it is a reasonable assumption that all teams benefited in one instance or another.

The conversation about PEDs is old hat, anyway. People have been enhancing performance for years, but you don't see anyone calling for Gaylord Perry to be kicked out of the HoF.

I'm not claiming that there wasn't a significant amount of steroid use in the last couple of decades, and various methods of cheating prior to that. That's pretty much common knowledge and, yes, has been discussed ad nauseam.

I was just reacting to the statement that PEDs only affected individual stats and didn't affect the game itself. Since it's absurd to think that every team had the exact same number of users as every other team, then of course it affected the game! (As does gambling.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yoda, I totally agree with your stance on Rose, but I don't see how you can make this statement. If you conclude that individual records were tarnished by PEDs but it didn't affect the game itself, do you think that all those extra stats happened in a vacuum, without changing the outcomes of games? How is that possible?

There have been too many PED abusers in history. We know some of them for sure but there are probably many more who got away with it: random testing, fringe players, lack of testing, etc. I think steroid use was rampant during the 90's-00's equally among hitters and pitchers that no one team had a clear advantage over another. But we'll never know for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.