One or the Other: Barry Bonds vs Pete Rose

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by molson

A lot of people throw around terms like "innocent until proven guilty", "hearsay", and "lack of evidence" when talking about Bonds and Rose, as if this is a criminal prosecution. None of those concepts apply to the hall of fame, or to public opinion. They're particularlly irrelevant outside a courtroom because there's no "prosecution" formally investigating and handling this case.

If there were, I have no doubt that both Bonds and Rose would be found guilty. (Bonds of using banned substances, both pre- and post- the drug testing era, and Rose of betting both for and against his own team). Since there's no prosecutorial investigation of either, it's IMPOSSIBLE to make a case, from what he have, "beyond a reasonable doubt", etc.

Those criminal legal concepts and terms assume an adversarial process between two sides, when both sides have access to discovery, subpoenas, and other elements of the criminal justice process. Outside a courtroom, it's completely meaningless. People are free to have their own opinions, and use those opinions to keep people out of the hall of fame, etc. - they are not held to any particular burden of proof.

Just had to get that off my chest.

QFT

[Logan]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Where are we using hearsay? And why exactly at this point should anyone believe anything Rose has to say about his gambling on baseball given how much his story has changed over the years and his ongoing attempts to get himself in the Hall of Fame?

Thank you. We are using the words that Rose himself has used. Only at the point when other's have caught him in a lie, did he change his story. And the he changed it again. And yet you (VPI) believe his final stance, the one where it seems like he only did it for the integrity of the game.

Baaaaaaaaaah.

[Bad-example]

Rose bet on baseball through a shady bookie character. This opened him up to possible pressure to fix games in return for cancelling big gambling debts or to avoid being exposed by blackmailers.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Bad-example

Rose bet on baseball through a shady bookie character. This opened him up to possible pressure to fix games in return for cancelling big gambling debts or to avoid being exposed by blackmailers.

Yet all of that amounts to jack shit when it comes to the numbers he put up while playing, not something that can be said about what Bonds did.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Bad-example

Rose bet on baseball through a shady bookie character. This opened him up to possible pressure to fix games in return for cancelling big gambling debts or to avoid being exposed by blackmailers.

Good point that isn't brought up very often.

Tim Donahey didn't set out to try to rig NBA games, it happened when he had shady gambling debts that he couldn't get out of. Reason 10,000 that gambling is baseball's ultimate sin, no matter what side you bet on.

If Rose truly bet EVERY game in 1989, he ran into some trouble (since the Reds were well under .500).

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by molson

If Rose truly bet EVERY game in 1989, he ran into some trouble (since the Reds were well under .500).

Yep - was he really such an inveterate homer that he always bet on his team to win?

And can we really be certain he only started gambling on baseball after he quit playing and was no longer a player or a player/manager?

[molson]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

And can we really be certain he only started gambling on baseball after he quit playing and was no longer a player or a player/manager?

Nope.

There's no way that we know 100% of what Rose did, gambling-wise. The chances that Dowd uncovered EVERYTHING in a limited investigation, (that Rose ended by agreeing to a voluntary ban), are slim to none.

[Young Drachma]

Both. But if not, Barry. Pete is banned from baseball for something others would be banned for had they did it at the same time. Barry, not so much.

[Butter]

Again, I'd like to state that I am not a Rose fan, because the man is a selfish prick who says what he says only to get by.

But if you think that his gambling episode set baseball back further than Bonds and his steroid fueled home run chase, you are mistaken. In Rose's case, fans were pretty sure that this was one maverick guy who essentially tried to fix games for personal benefit (and even that point is in dispute... at best, you can prove that he may not have tried as hard to win when he did not have as much money on the line).

In Bonds' case, he and others like him have brought the entire history and record keeping process into disrepute due to the belief of many fans that he (and others) is/has been juiced. This whole steroid mess has made it impossible for some fans to ever be able to take any records or players seriously again.

Which do you really think has hurt the game more?

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

In Bonds' case, he and others like him have brought the entire history and record keeping process into disrepute due to the belief of many fans that he (and others) is/has been juiced. This whole steroid mess has made it impossible for some fans to ever be able to take any records or players seriously again.

Which do you really think has hurt the game more?

Whether Bonds or Rose are bad guys or not, whether their personae or methods are detriments to the game or not, I don't think a "statistical sanctity" argument really is a valid one. Statistical purity never existed to begin with. And if anything, the whole steroids controversy sheds light on how contextual statistics really are. The steroids-statistics link discussions promote a new level of understanding for many fans, and these fans are now better equipped to evaluate statistics more critically.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Which do you really think has hurt the game more?

You're trying to compare the entire steroids era with one guy, Pete Rose, I think it's apples and oranges. I guarantee you there's great players today considered "clean" by the public, that aren't. You're making Bonds a scapegoat for an entire generation just because he's the most successful.

I'm not saying what he did is OK because everyone did it, but he does have less individual culpability, because the real "villains" of the steroid era are MLB and the Player's Union. Players will cheat if they can get away with it, throughout the history of baseball. Ted Williams used a corked bat on occasion. Others have mentioned spit balls. None of these things, collectively, have had the effect of the steroid era, but when you break it down to INDIVIDUAL players, the blame is identical.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Whether Bonds or Rose are bad guys or not, whether their personae or methods are detriments to the game or not, I don't think a "statistical sanctity" argument really is a valid one. Statistical purity never existed to begin with. And if anything, the whole steroids controversy sheds light on how contextual statistics really are. The steroids-statistics link discussions promote a new level of understanding for many fans, and these fans are now better equipped to evaluate statistics more critically.

Indeed. So that maybe more folks will realize, say, that Pedro Martinez's 2000 season was more impressive than Bob Gibson's 1968, even though Pedro had a 1.74 ERA compared to Gibson's 1.12. They may learn to compare stats to the league average and then make decisions on the worth of players.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by molson

You're trying to compare the entire steroids era with one guy, Pete Rose, I think it's apples and oranges. I guarantee you there's great players today considered "clean" by the public, that aren't. You're making Bonds a scapegoat for an entire generation just because he's the most successful.

I'm not saying what he did is OK because everyone did it, but he does have less individual culpability, because the real "villains" of the steroid era are MLB and the Player's Union. Players will cheat if they can get away with it, throughout the history of baseball. Ted Williams used a corked bat on occasion. Others have mentioned spit balls. None of these things, collectively, have had the effect of the steroid era, but when you break it down to INDIVIDUAL players, the blame is identical.

I don't disagree with any of this... except the idea that I am making Bonds the steroid scapegoat. There are several players who are scapegoats, and Bonds is the most high profile right now, so he is catching the most heat. Deservedly so, in my opinion.

As for the idea that "statistical purity never existed" (by Klinglerware)... in the minds of many, that is not true. The more that this myth is shattered, the more baseball benefits, I think.