Pete Rose broke the rule, "no gambling on baseball." Alex Rodriguez cheated by taking a drug to make him play better, but that wasn't an official rule at the time.
Rose's actions never changed the result of a game, the final score, or the history of the game's statistics. ARod put up bigger numbers, altered final scores, and probably changed the final results of some games. How much did steroids help him? No one can really tell. However, he didn't break a baseball rule.
Which is the bigger crime? Is one player more deserving to go into the Hall of Fame?
Posts
7 comments:
In light of the Black Sox scandal, I believe that gambling on baseball is a bigger sin than using steroids. Gambling on baseball affects the integrity of the game - how do we know that Pete Rose didn't manage differently when he had money on the game? Players who used steroids still played as hard as they could - they just had an unfair advantage that helped them - and like you said, it wasn't even against the rules.
Dave-Good points. Pete's guilty of betting on baseball when he was a manager. Should his playing and managing career be separate? No one questions his 4,256 hits... the same will not be said of Rodriguez's home runs. He will have questions about this totals.
Does inflated numbers affect the integrity of the game? Does it go at the core of baseball - it's history. Can we have an honest home run king arguement anymore.
Personally, I think both should be excluded from the HOF because of the Central Park (AFraud) and underwear (Rose)advertisements!
It pains me to say this but...
I am solidly of the opinion Rose fixed games.
It's sad, but once Rose admitted he bet on games (and bet on them in an illegal fashion) - I can only conclude that he fixed the games he did not bet on.
I was under the impression that roids were a banned substance in baseball in the early '90s. They just weren't tested for. Also, steroids are illegal in the US, so unless your were doing the cycles in the Domincan Republic, you were breaking laws.
Deal - If we make the assumption that Rose broke a rule more often than he was caught for (assuming he fixed games that he wasn't betting on), can we also assume that ARod was taking steroids during years that he didn't test positive for it?
ZMan - Excellent point. ARod broke laws... just jot baseball rules.
Should one, both, or neither of them get into the Hall?
Neither should be in. The cardinal rule of baseball is no betting. I think now we should add steroids to that. US laws trump MLB. Steroids were illegal. Both affect the integrity of the game- just in different ways. Steroids created an even more unfair advantage then Rose's situation IF you believe him in that he only bet on his team to win. If I had to choose I would put Pete in the HOF based on numbers because you can't argue that these were inflated in any way. Now we have to wonder how inflated A-Fraud or A-Hole's #'s are.
I am now even more stringent in feeling that Henry Aaron is STILL the all time HR KING!!
I don't believe it is much of an assumption. To me it would take more to assume Rose was not fixing games.
My argument is that if you are betting on a series of games, by definition you are betting against the team in games you are not betting on If Rose was betting at Vegas or something I may give him more lattitude, but the fact that he was ussing illegal bookies leads me to believe that they were working together.
As far as comparing him to A-Rod. I have no feel for the steroids issues, one could make several excuses for A-Rod's case. But I must argue at the very least A-Rod was and has been dishonest.
regardless of weather or not steroids were against the rules of the game it was dishonest to take them. of course it also dishonest to step into and 0-2 pitch off a guy you know you can't hit.
Post a Comment