I have wondered about that. Were there any instances where Rose stacked up too many resources (using up relievers, letting injured players play) to increase the chances of a win tonight at future cost?
Rob Neyer, at espn.com, has come up with some interesting points on this. While he isn't real happy about Rose probably getting in, he does make a distinction between "gambling on ourself to win" and "taking money to lose". There is no evidence that Rose ever bet *against* his team. In fact, knowing how competitive Rose is, that would probably be almost impossible for him to do. Gambling illegally is one thing; losing on purpose is quite another.
I wish I had time to find it at the moment, but Neyer had one or two *excellent* columns clearing up many of the misconceptions about Shoeless Joe created by Field of Dreams. Of course, he also has a number of columns on why Rose should never be forgiven, but he does acknowledge that the two situations are different. I'll see if I can hunt it down later.
I will not rant. I will not rant. I will not rant.
*deep breath*
Pete Rose should go into the Hall of Fame the same day Joe Jackson does.
Not before.
Okay, on a more reasoned stance -- not only could he have burned relievers (or sat someone on the day he didn't bet on them), but his bets on the Reds (or lack of a bet) also allowed gambling syndicates (not necessarily the bastions of nobility) an inside view of the game. Come on now, do you think, if you're a bookie and Pete Rose is betting with you, that you won't broadcast to your syndicate whether or not Pete is betting his team? A no bet is basically the same as betting against them.
He's not yet given any sense of remorse or regret (other than the fact that he was banned from baseball).
To me, the interesting thing is that people seem more against him getting into the Hall now than they were before. I can't believe that anyone actually believed him before, but apparently they did -- or apparently they're upset that he's so willing to say he lied without once apologizing.
And um, that quote of his that's been everywhere? That one about, "Yes, I bet on baseball and my mistake was not coming clean sooner.
No, Pete, your mistake was in betting on baseball.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-06 06:38 am (UTC)Yes, I do realise the transgressions cannot be directly compared. But at least they fessed up to the exact extent of their involvement with due haste.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-06 06:39 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-06 06:44 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-06 07:03 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-06 02:57 pm (UTC)I wish I had time to find it at the moment, but Neyer had one or two *excellent* columns clearing up many of the misconceptions about Shoeless Joe created by Field of Dreams. Of course, he also has a number of columns on why Rose should never be forgiven, but he does acknowledge that the two situations are different. I'll see if I can hunt it down later.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-06 07:13 am (UTC)*deep breath*
Pete Rose should go into the Hall of Fame the same day Joe Jackson does.
Not before.
Okay, on a more reasoned stance -- not only could he have burned relievers (or sat someone on the day he didn't bet on them), but his bets on the Reds (or lack of a bet) also allowed gambling syndicates (not necessarily the bastions of nobility) an inside view of the game. Come on now, do you think, if you're a bookie and Pete Rose is betting with you, that you won't broadcast to your syndicate whether or not Pete is betting his team? A no bet is basically the same as betting against them.
He's not yet given any sense of remorse or regret (other than the fact that he was banned from baseball).
To me, the interesting thing is that people seem more against him getting into the Hall now than they were before. I can't believe that anyone actually believed him before, but apparently they did -- or apparently they're upset that he's so willing to say he lied without once apologizing.
And um, that quote of his that's been everywhere? That one about, "Yes, I bet on baseball and my mistake was not coming clean sooner.
No, Pete, your mistake was in betting on baseball.
Geez.
Okay, so I ranted. Sorry.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-06 08:21 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-07 03:41 pm (UTC)Ah, the joy of LJ, where everyone's universe is disjoint...