With speculation about electronic buzzers now going on, I was curious how this is being viewed relative to historical cheating in MLB.
I see it exactly as you do.1) Wearing a device that electronically notifies you of a pitch (Jose Altuve, etc)
2) Using a camera in the dugout to bang on a drum (Alex Cora, etc)
3) Pine tar on a Bat / Foreign Substance on baseball (numerous)
4) Steroids (Barry Bonds, etc)
5) Betting on your own team to win (Pete Rose)
Betting on another team to win would be top.
Dowd says he couldn't prove it but that he thinks it happened.Hasn't it been proven that Rose did not just "bet on his own team to win"? I thought his bookie was quoted later that he made all sorts of bets including on the Reds to lose.
And yes, I realize Giamatti specifically stopped the investigation with his settlement with Rose, but he had the bet book and everything.
George Brett. you can’t have it to high up the barrel but ive understood what advantage it gives the batterPine tar on a bat?
I don't see how anything else could be worse than throwing games.Purposely losing/throwing a game(s)-ie Black Sox.
Everything else is a distant 2nd
I would think we would all acknowledge that. That's why it's not on list.I don't see how anything else could be worse than throwing games.
It doesn't really give a specific advantage, but pine tar too far up the bat can then come into contact with balls, making them unplayable. In fact, it can give an advantage to a pitcher in that there's now a foreign substance on the ball.George Brett. you can’t have it to high up the barrel but ive understood what advantage it gives the batter
That's the silliest thing I've ever seen. People are losing their perspective.Pine tar on a bat?
I'm pretty sure that Giamatti said so as well.Dowd says he couldn't prove it but that he thinks it happened.
I don't understand having betting as the least offence if this is also true.Betting on another team to win would be top.
They put the rule in during the WWI era to save baseballs (getting pine tar on the ball made them harder to see as dusk came in the pre-stadium lighting era). The rule was let stand since pine tar on the ball would give the pitcher an advantage after someone got a big gob on it. But given the relatively unlimited supply of baseballs and how often they replace them, it's one of those rules largely without a purpose anymore.George Brett. you can’t have it to high up the barrel but ive understood what advantage it gives the batterPine tar on a bat?
Players are constantly being required to compromise their health in order to keep up.I still think steroids are the worst. It's the only one on the list that requires other players to compromise their health in order to keep up.
The best explanation as to why I've heard that betting on your own team to win is also forbidden is that it sends a "message" to the bookies that you don't intend to throw the game.I don't understand having betting as the least offence if this is also true.
Betting on your own team to win can be as damaging to the integrity of the game, given that you are betting more or less (or nothing) on any given night. The pitching changes a manager makes are the most important in-game decisions a manager makes. The amount you've bet (or not bet) could easily influence those decisions. A manager would want to save his best pitchers for a game where the stakes are higher. Not to mention, lineup construction and injury management could have been seriously impacted.
Both situations lead to managing not to win. This is just as bad as managing to lose from a severity standpoint.
If you bet on your team to win 2 of the 3 games in a series, are you not giving information to your bookie about the third game?1) Wearing a device that electronically notifies you of a pitch (Jose Altuve, etc)
2) Using a camera in the dugout to bang on a drum (Alex Cora, etc)
3) Pine tar on a Bat / Foreign Substance on baseball (numerous)
4) Steroids (Barry Bonds, etc)
5) Betting on your own team to win (Pete Rose)
Betting on another team to win would be top.
Let me amend.I don't understand having betting as the least offence if this is also true.
Betting on your own team to win can be as damaging to the integrity of the game, given that you are betting more or less (or nothing) on any given night. The pitching changes a manager makes are the most important in-game decisions a manager makes. The amount you've bet (or not bet) could easily influence those decisions. A manager would want to save his best pitchers for a game where the stakes are higher. Not to mention, lineup construction and injury management could have been seriously impacted.
Both situations lead to managing not to win. This is just as bad as managing to lose from a severity standpoint.
Dowd says he couldn't prove it but that he thinks it happened.
They knew he bet on baseball and had proof. And Rose ended up admitting to it .I'm pretty sure that Giamatti said so as well.
The two issues are:Let me amend.
A player betting on his own team to win doesn't bother me. What are they going to do, run faster? Swing harder?
A manager betting on his own team to win is different for the reasons you mentioned.
I agree. I still keep the ranking the way I had them because this feels less likely to impact the game than the others which have the potential to impact every play every game. Betting on your own team to win as a player has risk, but not nearly as much.The two issues are:
1. If you're a guy who bets regularly, then not betting sends a message. It says you know something the general field does not.
2. If you lose, you can end up in debt to gamblers. And that is not a state you want your ball players to be in. Only bad outcomes, no good ones. Ok, there is one neutral one, you have the cash and pay them back.
Yep ... Yankee cheating is better than non-Yankee cheating
Dude, relax. I am not trying to defend the Yankees with my every post. I said steroids were the worst in the sixth post in this thread.Yep ... Yankee cheating is better than non-Yankee cheating
BS ... if you have to go as far as find a tweet from Alex Wood, you're definitely doing it on purposeDude, relax. I am not trying to defend the Yankees with my every post. I said steroids were the worst in the sixth post in this thread.
I thought it was relevant what an actual current MLB pitcher had to say on the matter. If you don't, just put me on ignore.
Thanks for linking that story, that was a fascinating read. I voted for steroids just because I think it's altered the game as we know it today. It's frustrating to look back at some of these terrific careers and have to put your own moral asterisk on it. That being said, I think throwing games would be the clear front runner, including if the reports that Rose bet against his Reds are true.I don't see how anything else could be worse than throwing games.
BTW, read Joe Posnaski's piece on Dutch Leonard, Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker, Smokey Joe Wood, and gambling
Whatever, keep embarrassing yourself.BS ... if you have to go as far as find a tweet from Alex Wood, you're definitely doing it on purpose
Let's not ruin this thread for everyone. I brought relevant information into this thread with the Alex Wood tweet.Hahahahahahaha
I did that the first time you posted the Wood tweetLet's not ruin this thread for everyone. I brought relevant information into this thread with the Alex Wood tweet.
I hope with your next post you will try to do the same.
#2 is why I would have gambling as the least forgivable. Otherwise, I'm not sure that I care about any of it in a vacuum. I want my teams to win and their rivals to lose.The two issues are:
1. If you're a guy who bets regularly, then not betting sends a message. It says you know something the general field does not.
2. If you lose, you can end up in debt to gamblers. And that is not a state you want your ball players to be in. Only bad outcomes, no good ones. Ok, there is one neutral one, you have the cash and pay them back.
Not exactly. You were making some kind of comment about my reasoning for posting the Wood tweet. Trying to stir things up.I did that the first time you posted the Wood tweet
The health compromises of football are inherent in the the actual play of the sport. The health compromises of steroid use are not necessary to the play of any sport. Steroid use is a voluntary decision by the player that we don’t allow because any sport can be played without it and its use by a few makes its use necessary for many of the rest.Players are constantly being required to compromise their health in order to keep up.
Taken in large doses, Toradol is incredibly toxic and can destroy your kidneys. Baseball players - especially pitchers - take it in doses far beyond recommended levels on a routine basis. Hell, Schilling used to post about it here back when he was a member.
The point is that if that's what bothers you about steroids, you should stop watching professional sports. (Especially football.)
Edit: after a quick check, I believe that Toradol is no longer used because of how dangerous it is. I'm sure teams are simply abusing another painkiller instead.
The only reason to take steroids is to heal more quickly. You take them so you can workout harder, more often, and still recover and rebuild your muscles between workouts. So where is the line that you draw between healing and enhancing?The health compromises of football are inherent in the the actual play of the sport. The health compromises of steroid use are not necessary to the play of any sport. Steroid use is a voluntary decision by the player that we don’t allow because any sport can be played without it and its use by a few makes its use necessary for many of the rest.
I see the use of pain killers and other health-compromising tools to keep one on the field as qualitatively different. I even see the use of steroids or HGH for the sole reason of healing quicker as a few orders or magnitude less egregious than using steroids to enhance your performance. The latter entails a raising of the standard of successful performance to a level that’s difficult to reach without the use of health compromising substances. And to my mind that’s way worse than any form of stealing signs.