Interesting ESPN poll regarding Pete Rose's lifetime ban

[nolemmings]

If I remember right, Dowd had solid evidence that Rose was gambling on baseball in ‘85 and ‘86. Still, Rose may have been too self-absorbed in chasing Cobb to wager much in 1985. After all, he had to pencil himself in at 1b for 500 AB to get the hit record– first base for a guy who had no pop (2 HR), no speed (8 SB), no glove, and a .264 BA. Team first, right Pete? Bet on it.

[brewing]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

After all, he had to pencil himself in at 1b for 500 AB to get the hit record– first base for a guy who had no pop (2 HR), no speed (8 SB), no glove, and a .264 BA. Team first, right Pete? Bet on it.

I agree, but let's be realistic to what the team wanted. Rose was a draw and the Reds benefitted.

[nolemmings]

No doubt. The Reds wanted butts in the seats and for him to get the record, and the team did finish in second place. It was the only fit that would have allowed him to get the record in 1985 and maybe ever-- I doubt any AL team would have plugged him in at DH to get the record in a city where he had no history.

Makes you wonder though. The Reds had Nick Esasky and his 21 HRs in LF. Esasky was basically a 3b and should have played there ahead of old and by then lousy Buddy Bell. Still, they had groomed Esasky for 1b also the year prior. So putting him at first instead of Rose would have freed up outfield ABs for a young Eric Davis and a young Paul O'Neill.

Hey, I've got more than enough disgust about Rose's gambling, lying and arrogance for this '85 lineup thing to really matter to me, but just thought it helped take some of the polish off of the "Pete Rose was all about winning" mantra.