Pete Rose used corked bat in 1985
Supposedly. Meh, I never wanted this jackass in the Hall of Fame anyway
almost 2 years ago
Worf
66 comments
2 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Nothing I learn about Pete Rose could ever surprise me at this point.
But he still can disappoint me. This news does just that.
Every time I read DeadSpin I feel like I'm looking at some sort of porn.
"The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money." --Ernie Banks
Does that make you enjoy it more or less?
I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson
by Shanghai Badger on Jun 8, 2010 12:56 PM CDT up reply actions
Much, much less.
I think DeadSpin is mostly disgusting.
"The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money." --Ernie Banks
It is. TMZ for sports.
They feed trolls with glee…Let’s see how we can Springerize this story into something the viewers will laugh at.
"We were young, good looking* and stupid. Now we're just stupid." - Mick Jagger. * good looking = rich, hugely successful rock star
by Sandberg's evil twin on Jun 8, 2010 2:02 PM CDT up reply actions
Serves you right for looking at the pictures.
Don’t you know you’re only supposed to go there for the articles???
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
I know porn. I've looked at porn since I was 11
Deadspin, sir, is no porn.
There is no such thing as an ugly female breast
by Worf on Jun 8, 2010 3:06 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Don't pretend you know more about this topic than I.
"The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money." --Ernie Banks
It's too bad, too
Most of the other Gawker sites are pretty good.
What is a horse shoe? What does a horse shoe do? Are there any horse socks? Is anybody listening to me?
In professional sports...
…if you aren’t cheating, you aren’t trying. If he never gambled, would anyone really give a rat’s behind about this? Gaylord Perry admits to having used the spitball and he’s in the Hall of Fame. I’m sorry, but I don’t see the problem here. I’d still rather see Pete Rose in Cooperstown than some of the others that have made it in via the BBWAA and VC.
RIP Ronnie James Dio (July 10, 1942 - May 16, 2010).
Gaylord Perry shouldn't be in the Hall
And I’d rather see the Hall burned to the ground than have Pete Rose in there
There is no such thing as an ugly female breast
I agree. If you look back at a lot of players that were successful as HOF players, you'd see similar things.
Pete Rose may be a jackass, but Ty Cobb was the ultimate jackass and it seems strange to single out Rose for something in 1985 now. Are we going to get flooded with requests for Ty Cobb to be booted from the HOF? No. Rose didn’t make the HOF because of his betting on baseball…so this seems pretty childish, which given the source of the article shouldn’t be surprising. If this makes someone “disappointed” in Rose I submit they out to take off their rose colored glasses of their favorite players. It shouldn’t have taken this to get you disappointed in him…his mistakes have been a lot more obvious than say Bonds or the like.
"We were young, good looking* and stupid. Now we're just stupid." - Mick Jagger. * good looking = rich, hugely successful rock star
by Sandberg's evil twin on Jun 8, 2010 1:53 PM CDT up reply actions
Rose should not be in the hall.
He broke two big cardinal rules and lied about breaking them.
I’m not saying that the hall is without awful people like Ty Cobb. But Cobb, as far as we know, never cheated and he never bet on the game.
by elgato on Jun 8, 2010 3:26 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
They actually made it a rule to exclude people like Rose after Rose was banned
Before that, it was just a gentleman’s agreement. They had to do it because the BBWAA would have elected Rose.
RIP Ronnie James Dio (July 10, 1942 - May 16, 2010).
What about the lifetime ban from baseball?
That dates back to the Black Sox.
Completely different thing
There was no rule when the Hall of Fame was established to exclude banned players like Joe Jackson. This was done purely by a gentleman’s agreement. After Pete Rose was banned, the Hall of Fame found itself in a pickle. They had to put their own rule in because when, not if, Pete Rose was elected, they would effectively embarrass the Commissioner’s office. That’s not even getting into the implications that it would have opened the door for Joe Jackson. It was enough to make them mess their pants and institute their own policy on banned players.
Note that this is completely different from the Commissioner’s office issuing a lifetime ban for a player, umpire or executive. They cannot participate in any official Major League Baseball functions, but the Hall of Fame is not a branch of Major League Baseball. I’m afraid you were comparing apples to oranges here.
RIP Ronnie James Dio (July 10, 1942 - May 16, 2010).
more like oranges to tangerines
Yes, the HoF is not a branch of MLB as you pointed out. But if they’re so worried about embarrassing the Commissioner’s office, then they are obviously under the influence of MLB and therefore somewhat tied to the hip.
And the HoF is/was apparently embarrassed by their own voting procedures if they were too scared to even let the process take its course.
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
Well, the Hall of Fame can't exist without MLB
There’s the real issue right there. I honestly don’t think Selig cares much about what goes on at the Hall of Fame, but Vincent certainly did. Selig operates by trying to keep everyone happy. His decisions may upset baseball purists, but reinstating Rose isn’t like what he did with the All-Star Game. That issue is a nuclear bomb to those who want absolute zero tolerance.
RIP Ronnie James Dio (July 10, 1942 - May 16, 2010).
Rose
should absolutely be in the Hall of Fame.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Jun 8, 2010 2:09 PM CDT up reply actions
As long as Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, and Alex Rodriguez don't make it, I don't give a crap who else does.
I loathe those three men. With a passion.
"The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money." --Ernie Banks
ARod still seems like a lock at this point
The fallout for his steroid use was not nearly as significant as for the other two guys.
Correct
It’s not about whether you had bet or not, especially considering that doesn’t enhance performance. It’s for the best of the best, and he certainly was one of them.
"That pitch wasn’t down and in, that pitch was down and up." Tim McCarver
by wrigleyrocker12 on Jun 8, 2010 3:23 PM CDT up reply actions
A corked bat enhances performance.
Or, at least, Rose thought it would. And that means he shouldn’t be in the hall.
He ALSO shouldn’t be in the hall because he bet on baseball and lied about it for years.
No, he should not.
He bet on baseball, he lied about it. He cheated with a corked bat, he lied about it.
Honoring this man would be disgusting.
doesn't the HoF already have a lot of his stuff in there? Isn't that "honoring" him?
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
Hall of Fame induction ...
is the ultimate honor. But I don’t know if they have a lot of stuff about Rose in the Hall.
They do, actually.
Many things from Rose’s career are on display. The only thing he doesn’t have is a plaque.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Either way, there are two points:
1) Should the ban be lifted so the writers can vote him in?
2) Should the writers vote him in?
I’d say no to both questions, but I don’t really care that much about the first one because I don’t think the baseball writers would vote him in.
Actually there's a third point - and it would clear up a lot of the ambiguity
3) Disconnect the link between the ban and being eligible for the HoF.
If betting on baseball is so bad a crime that it warrants being banned from MLB, so be it. That’s for the MLB heirarchy to decide on and live with.
But the HoF should not have changed their rules just to avoid the possibility of voting a “banned” player in. There’s a lot more to the HoF than just MLB and MLB should not be pulling the strings on the HoF.
For better or worse (and IMO, it’s definitely for worse), the HoF has a process in place for voting in new members – the writers do it for the newbies and the members do it for the veterans. Let the process proceed as it has for many years.
Personally, I think the chances are very very slim the writers would have voted Rose in, so I don’t see what harm there would have been in making him eligible for HoF. And the continued rejection of him on the ballot, year after year, would have quelled a lot of the chaos and uproar.
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
+1
I feel he would have been rejected 15 times for the Hall. I believe he would have gotten enough votes to stay on the ballot from year to year. There’s no way he ever would have gotten the necessary 75%. I don’t know if he even would have gotten 50%.
"The big possums walk late." - Harry Caray
fair point
I wonder, though, if he would have been voted in 15 years ago — before a lot of the information was out there.
I think he would have gotten in
This is what the Hall of Fame was worried about. The VC is pretty good about policing who gets in (no one alive) the Hall and that was one big reason Selig backed off. It’s a pretty exclusive club in the end and it has little to do with loving or honoring the game in the end.
RIP Ronnie James Dio (July 10, 1942 - May 16, 2010).
They do
which satisfies the “BUT IT’S A MUSEUM” argument some Rose defenders have.
Actually, I don’t care if he’s inducted after he dies. I just don’t want him having the honor he so desperately craves.
There is no such thing as an ugly female breast
I honestly think Rose knows he's not getting back into baseball
I can’t help but think Rose’s admission was part of some backroom deal with Selig. Selig seems to want to let Rose back in, but he wets his pants every time someone raises a fuss about it. Rose didn’t have to admit anything because if it did anything, it damaged his reputation. Then, Selig decides to go back on his deal with Rose, having justification because he just admitted to gambling. There are guys out there like Aaron and Schmidt who keep stumping for Rose. Schmidt is the voice of those who think the ban is a bunch of crap.
But what can Rose really do? He gets slammed for hanging around casinos and signing autographs for a lot of money. But what is the guy really going to do? Maybe in the black and white worldview of many, they don’t really care what he has to do to make it. He’s plead his case a number of times already, so what more could he say? It’s really politics in the end keeping Rose out of baseball and nothing more. We can talk about the rules and morality all day long, but this is what it comes down to. Bud Selig has to keep people happy and the easiest way to keep people happy is to not reinstate Rose.
RIP Ronnie James Dio (July 10, 1942 - May 16, 2010).
At this point...
… Rose isn’t likely to be offered another job in baseball. He’ll be 70 next April. Reinstatement would be an empty gesture.
That said, it should still not be offered.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
If they were never going to reinstate Rose, the offer never should have been on the table
Of course, I realize that was more Giamatti’s doing. Reinstatement is also never an empty gesture. Robert E. Lee’s citizenship was restored over a century after his death. Go ahead and call it apples to oranges, but the whole point is that such a move is never a hollow gesture. The continued debate over Shoeless Joe proves that any hypothetical reinstatement of Rose would not be an empty gesture.
I don’t really care about the implication that it would negate the ruling on gambling either because I honestly don’t think it holds water. Nor does it grant him automatic entry into the Hall of Fame unless they made a ruling to restore his fifteen years of eligibility via the BBWAA similar to what they did for guys like Ron Santo. I still stand by my point that Rose’s continued exclusion in this day and age is more political. I don’t even think the Reds want that sort of circus surrounding Rose if he was reinstated even though they would finally be able to officially retire his number.
If you really want to know what I think will happen with Rose, I think it’s possible that Selig will reinstate Rose when Selig is on his way out. That’s about the only way I see it happening. I’d welcome it by saying, “It’s about time.”
RIP Ronnie James Dio (July 10, 1942 - May 16, 2010).
"It's about time"
Rose’s reinstatement or Selig being on his way out? ;-)
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
I think if Giamatti had not died suddenly...
… some sort of deal would have been brokered.
I also think that had Giamatti been commissioner in 1994, that strike would never have happened.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Performance enhancing drugs
are one thing. Here, you are attempting to be the best athlete possible. Gambling on the game, however, is stabbing the game in the heart.
babip giveth... and babip taketh away
by purple_haze on Jun 8, 2010 9:34 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Personally ...
I think cheating to enhance performance is worse — assuming that Rose didn’t bet against his own team or work to win certain games at the expense of others.
Both infractions are terrible, though.
I've reevaluated my opinion on steroid use
Steroid use was very prolific in the game at one point and with the union standing completely against drug testing, steroid use did potentially more harm to the game than Pete Rose’s isolated case did. It not only completely turned record books on their heads, but the steroid users drove good players out of the game who chose not to use. What about those who couldn’t get a job in MLB because of the steroid users?
I know I say that if you aren’t cheating, you aren’t trying, but it’s important to remember that the police aren’t going to throw the book at you for possessing a corked bat. It’s not illegal in the United States to use a spitball. Now it may be against the business policy set forth by the employing entity (MLB) and they have a right to discipline you the employee because of it. Now getting caught red handed with illegal drugs in your possession is a completely different story. Just ask Orlando Cepeda about that.
RIP Ronnie James Dio (July 10, 1942 - May 16, 2010).
The fact that he bet on baseball isn't the reason why we care about the corked bat.
As far as we know, Sosa never bet on baseball — and his corked bat is a major, major black mark against him.
Oh please spare me this Pete Rose stuff
He gambled on baseball. He knew that it was against the rules of baseball and knowingly did it anyhow. Bet on games involving his own team, that he managed (we already know he’s a liar and a cheat, so him saying that he never bet against the Reds holds no weight with me). He got caught, lied about it, then it was investigated by the new commissioner. The most important part of the thing is that HE WILLINGLY ACCEPTED A PERMANENT LIFETIME BAN FROM MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL. Cut and dry, that’s the whole story.
Rather than have the sordid details of his actions made public by the Commissioners office, he continued to lie about it and not go to legal hearings until ultimately he signed an agreement that they wouldn’t pursue the allegations if he accepted a lifetime ban.
He made his choice to be a liar and a coward and he gets his just desserts.
I don’t care that he’s a despicable person. I don’t care that everything he does is some sort of stupid publicity stunt hoping that his reinstatement application will finally be accepted.
I care that he knowingly bet on games that he had control over. I care that it was against the rules of major league baseball. I care that he’s now making money by bragging about how he gambled on baseball and signing autographs at casinos, essentially rubbing baseball’s collective noses in his disrespect for the game. I care that he accepted the permanent ban.
by ScottT on Jun 8, 2010 2:52 PM CDT reply actions 4 recs
This!
I don’t give a shit about the corked bat. It doesn’t even matter compared to gambling.
Gambling on baseball while employed by a MLB team is the rule you cannot break. It is worse than steroids, corking, or doctoring a ball.
Pete Rose did it, he lied, got caught. Too bad for him. End of story.
"There are no curses here...Games are won and lost on the baseball field" - Lou Piniella
I think
using a corked bat is a much worse offense than betting on baseball while employed in baseball…now if you purposely throw a game or 4 in a big global series of some sorts thats a different story to me.
Sipping the Kool-Aid since 1982 - Kinda
Currently 34,839 on the Season Ticket Wait List - Expected age of being #0: 119
The point is...
… that betting on baseball is specifically against the rules, posted on the door of every clubhouse. As a player of more than 20 years standing AND a manager, no one should have known this rule better than Pete Rose.
It’s illegal to cork your bat, too, but gambling on games goes to the very integrity of the game. If the games aren’t on the level, they’re no better than professional wrestling.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Few things in life are better than professional wrestling, bruddah!
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
if you purposely throw a game or 4 in a big global series of some sorts thats a different story to me.
And that is the whole point. You won’t always know if a game is thrown or not. You can’t make betting on baseball a conditional rule based weather a participant threw the game or not. As Al – it goes the very integrity of the game. Hands down the worst offense to fair baseball.
"There are no curses here...Games are won and lost on the baseball field" - Lou Piniella
BREAKING NEWS
Pete Rose admits to reading magazines in supermarket check out lines without paying for them.
I'll go to my grave believing Armando Galarraga tossed the 21st perfect game in MLB history.
BREAKING NEWS
That’s not even close to the same thing.
I was going for Onion-esque comedy, pure and simple
But I understand how my post could be misconstrued as snarkastic commentary on the subject.
I'll go to my grave believing Armando Galarraga tossed the 21st perfect game in MLB history.
All I think is that every time something surfaces to somehow make
Pete Rose look a little worse… Well, maybe not a little worse, it’s hard for him to get “worse,” but makes it tougher for Petey to crawl out of the slime, Ray Fosse must smile a little.
may addition by subtraction be real
Probably not.
Rose is smiling and signing books and making big dough. Fosse can’t get his career back. At the time he was injured, Fosse was being called “the next Johnny Bench”.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
For the most part...
…you are correct. It may lighten the bat a tiny bit, but that’s about it.
I’ll guarantee, there are guys in the HOF who tried a corked bat at some point in time.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
And plenty not in the hall of fame
Bob Brenly talked with barely concealed pride about one of his Giants teammates (can’t remember which one) who knew how to expertly cork his bats, and made it sound like it was a very common thing in the 1980s.
Had to be Will Clark
How I wish Zim would’ve asked to check his bat during the NLCS, if only to get inside his head and take him out of his game.
I'll go to my grave believing Armando Galarraga tossed the 21st perfect game in MLB history.
One problem with that view:
Why do they do it then? Why risk suspension, loss of reputation, and potentially worse by doing something you know is against the rules unless it helps you?
People make this same argument with steroids. It presupposes that we, the fans, know better than the players whether these things help. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t risk so much to use them.
by Orval Overall on Jun 9, 2010 8:35 AM CDT up reply actions
Very simple answer...
…they do it because they can.
Most highly competitive people will always look for an edge if the risks are not too great. This is why more pitchers than most think doctored up the ball in some form or fashion – whether it was the catcher scuffing it for them, or them putting some substance on the ball that was difficult to detect.
This is true in most sports – Tony Esposito used to put extra stuffing in his pads to make them wider than what was legal. Teams figured this out and made the refs measure his pads and they made Tony take the stuffing out. Later on, he would put it back in again because they figured no one would catch on.
The corked bat is really a minor thing that gives a hitter little to no advantage. it is almost more of a psychological thing with guys.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
They do it because they can?
Players also could wear an eyepatch over one eye in the mistaken belief that it will strengthen the other eye and improve timing. They can do that, but they don’t.
Players also could drop acid before games in the mistaken belief that if Dock Ellis used it before pitching his no/no, it will help them achieve similar results. They can do that, but they don’t.
Players do, however, cork bats and juice their bodies. Why? Is it a form of mass stupidity or confusion on the part of the players? A placebo effect that makes them think they are benefitting when really its just in their head? For some reason I doubt that. They are the ones using the cork/steroids/whatever. They are the ones gathering first-hand data on whether it works. If it did not work, they would know long before we do. The fact that people keep using these things is testament to their value in boosting performance, and all the more reason that the users should be outed, ridiculed, and ineligible for the highest honors in the game.
by Orval Overall on Jun 10, 2010 3:30 PM CDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
Cubs By The Numbers
Cubs By The Numbers is a history of the ballclub by uniform number, but the biographies help trace the history of our beloved team in a new way. For everyone who's a Cubs fan, anyone who ever wore the uniform is like family. Cubs By The Numbers reintroduces readers to some of their long-lost ancestors, even ones they think they already know.
Click here to order your copy, available now!
Recent Stories in Chicago Cubs Game Threads
Recent Stories in Ticket Exchanges
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
