Which deserves a worse punishment?

[blackfordpu]

I was watching ColdPizza this morning and they had some guy talking about the scandals in baseball. The topic of Pete Rose came up and then Raphial Palmero. This jackass said that Palmairo's offense is not as bad as the one Rose committed and therefore should be in the HOF and Rose should be out.

Personally, I believe it should be the other way around. Gambling on baseball did not pad Rose's numbers or help him get the hits he got. Palmero's offense leaves his ability in question.

Any other thoughts? Who should be left in or out of the Hall of Fame?

[Reed Rothchild]

The problem with Rose is that he bet on his own team while he managed them. Gambling has, and always will be, the #1 focus in baseball because of the black sox scandal. It helped to put baseball in such a funk that only Babe Ruth could pull it out.

I hope that someday, steroids will have the same effect as gambling where no one will tolerate it and lifetime bans are the only enforcement.

Palmeiro's numbers are impressive but he was not an impact-type, game changing player. With his positive test, he showed me that he was only able to stay in the league for such a long time in order to up those #'s because of steroids. He does not belong in the hall of fame. He will be the Shoeless Joe and Pete Rose of the steroid era. I think they will make an example out of him just like those guys.

[Marcus Garvey]

I was watching ColdPizza this morning and they had some guy talking about the scandals in baseball. The topic of Pete Rose came up and then Raphial Palmero. This jackass said that Palmairo's offense is not as bad as the one Rose committed and therefore should be in the HOF and Rose should be out.


If you were watching Pardon the Interruption, I'd think it was Michael Wilbon. That guy's such an idiot, it's amazing to me that he hasn't wandered into traffic and been killed yet.

A few months ago, someone posed a question to Bill Simmons: What if, it's revealed, that Roger Clemmons is the undisputed Anti-Christ? Bill said he could just see the argument on PTI:
Kornheiser: You can't put Clemmons in the Hall of Fame, he wants to end the world!
Wilbon: I don't see how that affects his numbers as a pitcher. He definitely should be in the Hall of Fame!
Kornheiser: BUT HE'S THE ANTI-CHRIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If Wilbon were to cover College Football for ESPN, he'd replace Mark May!

[blackfordpu]

If you were watching Pardon the Interruption, I'd think it was Michael Wilbon. That guy's such an idiot, it's amazing to me that he hasn't wandered into traffic and been killed yet.

A few months ago, someone posed a question to Bill Simmons: What if, it's revealed, that Roger Clemmons is the undisputed Anti-Christ? Bill said he could just see the argument on PTI:
Kornheiser: You can't put Clemmons in the Hall of Fame, he wants to end the world!
Wilbon: I don't see how that affects his numbers as a pitcher. He definitely should be in the Hall of Fame!
Kornheiser: BUT HE'S THE ANTI-CHRIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If Wilbon were to cover College Football for ESPN, he'd replace Mark May!

It may have been Pardon the Interruption but the clip was on ColdPizza. :)

[saint0917]

The problem with Rose is that he bet on his own team while he managed them.

Yes, but betting on your team won't change the outcome of a game. Taking steroids can and will change the outcome. I'm not downplaying what Rose did, I just think what Palmero and other have done is worse.

[Fordham]

The negative impact on any sport if there is even the hint that gamblers might be having an influence on the game is enough for them to have a 'death penalty'-type penalty, imo.

It is far worse, imo, than the steroid problem. There is no excuse for Palmeiro or anyone else effectively cheating by using them, but I think a strong argument can be made that the sport knowing turned the other way in order to reap the benefits that come with fan's increased interest when they see so many long balls being hit.

This makes MLB very complicit in the steriod issue, along with the players who used them, (imo) than the gambling issue which they have always been very clear in being vigorously against. Basically, the steroid problem can be spread out amongst many, including the league itself, while the Rose gambling issue falls squarely on his shoulders (again, imo).

[Fordham]

Saint, I couldn't disagree more that betting ON your own team can't change the impact of the game. Just because it's better than betting against your team doesn't mean it doesn't impact things. Add an "over/under" bet to things or factor in a spread and it's very easy to see where a call may be made in order to meet the outcome of the bet v. simply to win the game.

Many of the hoops point shaving scandels from 20 - 30 years ago had nothing to do with a team helping their team to lose. It was simply in order to cover or not cover the spread.

In the end, I don't think there can be any area of grey when it comes to baseball, or any sports, views on their players, coaches/managers or officials having ANY association with gambling.

[saint0917]

I shouldn't say that betting wont change the outcome of a game because your right it can, I just think someone on steroids can impact it more.

[eagleskins]

I shouldn't say that betting wont change the outcome of a game because your right it can, I just think someone on steroids can impact it more.

Rose never bet on his team to lose. Therefore it didn't have any effect on the outcome.

[Gil Dobie]

I think they both should be posthumous hall of famers. Rose and Palmiero. Elect them after they pass on. Maybe start a list, Bonds, McGwire, Bagwell, Sosa (Steroids and Cork Bat), etc..... And put Roger Maris in, just because I am a homer.

[blueballs]

Rose never bet on his team to lose. Therefore it didn't have any effect on the outcome.

You can't really say that.

For example, what if Rose had money on a game and had a star player- say Paul O'Neill- who was nursing an injury and had been advised to sit for another day or two but was rushed into the lineup only to suffer a season or career ending injury while playing at less than 100%? How did he manage his pitching? Did he let guys throw 130+ pitches in April? Could he have ordered his pitchers to throw at other players to collect a bet? Could he have ordered dirty play on a slide play at 2nd? Could he have encouraged cheating- eg. corked bats- on the part of his own players?

The point is that Rose could have mismanaged his team out of zeal to collect on a bet in one game and potentially ruined his team's or a player's season, which dramatically alters the integrity of the game over time. it is a very big deal.

One other thought... a manager can impact the game far far more than any one player who might be on the juice. No contest.

[89Hen]

Rose never bet on his team to lose. Therefore it didn't have any effect on the outcome.
Exactly what I was thinking. If you can show that he bet on his team to lose or bet on an 'under', then I have a problem. If he's betting on his team to win and over, he should get in the HOF based on the balls it would take to do that alone.