Should these 3 players be in the HOF

[darwinbulldog]

From the Philadelphia Inquirer article:

"The biggest reason for the uproar over Rose’s return to the field in Philadelphia had less to do with his ban for gambling and more to do with the accusations of statutory rape that surfaced as part of testimony in federal court in 2017. That testimony only surfaced because Rose had filed a defamation suit against Dowd in 2015 following an interview on WCHE-AM (1520) in West Chester in which Dowd said a former associate of Rose told him that Rose had sex with underage girls “ages 12 to 14.”

“Michael Bertolini, you know, told us that he not only ran bets but he ran young girls for him down at spring training, ages 12 to 14,” Dowd said. “Isn’t that lovely? So that’s statutory rape every time you do that.”

Rose denied the allegations, adding that Dowd’s remarks were “entirely false in every respect.”

But as part of the defamation suit that followed against Dowd, new testimony suggested that Rose had a years-long relationship with an underage girl in Cincinnati during the 1970s after first meeting in 1973.

“Sometime after that, Pete Rose and I began meeting at a house in Cincinnati,” the woman said in a statement first obtained by ESPN. “It was at that house where, before my 16th birthday, Pete Rose began a sexual relationship with me. This sexual relationship lasted for several years. Pete Rose also met me in locations outside of Ohio where we had sex.”

Rose admitted in court filings that he had sex with the woman in question but believed that she was 16 at the time their relationship began “sometime in 1975,” when Rose was 34 years old and married with two children.

Because of the statute of limitations, Rose could not be charged with a crime."

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by raulus

I think the concept of betting for your team becomes a problem due to a few key facts:

1) It’s a long season. A good manager is making moves with the full season in mind, rather than just that game. Because the goal is to win more games in total, not just the ones that you bet on.

2) Moves a manager makes in one game impact the next game. And moves made in previous games impact today’s game. World Series game 7 is the exception, of course, because there’s no tomorrow, and you throw everything you’ve got in an attempt to win. Plus winning game 7 is worth other potential risks that a player might run, like getting injured, or aggravating an existing injury by playing whilst less than 100%.

3) We’re assuming he only bet on some games, and not on all of them. If he bet on all of them, or even almost all of them, then point #1 above is likely no longer relevant.

Since we’re having fun here, let’s dig into an example. Let’s say that Petey bets on the game 5 days from now. Maybe the manager has today’s starter skip his start to rest him up a little more. Or maybe gives him an early hook to avoid running up his pitch count and keep him fresh.

Then in the 2-3 games before the game in question, the manager selectively uses his relievers, deploying them in a fashion to make sure that the best relievers are fresh for the important game, rather than deploying them to win the most games overall.

For added effect, maybe the manager strategically rests some position players to keep them fresh for the important game, and lets the scrubs play more in the other games. You could probably go on here, maybe choosing to keep the other team from seeing some plays like a hit and run or a straight steal or even a bunt against the shift as a means of making it a more effective sneak attack when the important game comes along. Maybe the manager will choose to use a pinch hitter in an odd spot, just to get the hitter an extra look at a reliever that he might face in a critical spot in that future game.

Naturally, if you let your mind wander for long enough, it’s not hard to imagine a long list of moves that a manager could make to improve the odds of winning one game at the expense of other games. Even in relatively mild situations, it’s easy to imagine that 1-2 games around the game in question could be impacted. And in really extreme cases, it could multiply quickly, particularly if a manager ends up pushing a player and he gets hurt, thereby reducing the team’s chances while that player is out.

So particularly for a manager, unless they’re betting on every game, there’s the real possibility that managing like it’s WS game 7 for the games you bet on will adversely impact other games for your team.

There seems to be some confusion about how sports betting works in this thread, or at least with respect to baseball. Perhaps some "inside baseball" here would be helpful (see what I did there? Lol)

You can only place bets after the betting lines are posted. In baseball, sports books / bookies do not post opening lines for games until the day before that game is to be played. So, if it were Monday, Pete couldn't place a bet on say Friday's game and then make roster decisions today that would affect that game. Betting lines for tomorrow's games are not posted until today's games have ended. This is so that the market cannot take advantage of injuries that might happen in real time.

Also, the betting lines are dependent on who the starting pitchers are for any given game. If a pitcher gets scratched, all bets are off and the bettors are refunded. The line is heavily dependent upon who those SP are. So Pete could not take advantage of that by changing out his SP. The lines are also affected by who is available from the bullpen. If Joe Blow just pitched in relief for the last 3 nights, that can have an effect on the betting line. So, while it is true that any roster moves Pete might make today could have an effect on their likelihood of winning tomorrow, it ultimately does not matter, because those same roster moves will also have an effect on tomorrow's betting lines once they eventually get posted (after today's games are over).

So, Pete's roster moves today, also move the betting lines for tomorrow, which won't be posted until after Pete already makes those moves. He cannot gain an advantage, either today or tomorrow, by trying to win today. The only way he could gain an advantage is by betting *against* his team and making real-time decisions to try to throw those games. But again, there is no evidence of him ever having done that. And no bookie on the planet is going to accept that bet from him.

[glynparson]

Originally Posted by Snowman

If he had sex with a minor (assuming he wasn't just a teenager too, like an 18 year old with a 16 year old), then that's something different. Ya, maybe ban him for that if true, but the betting on one's team to win? That's ridiculous. Anyone who actually cares about that isn't thinking it through.

He’s admitted to the telationship.he claims she was a year older or some bs.

[philo98]

No opinion on Rose, but Bonds and Clemens no way. I'm a former steroid user for 8+ years and actually monitored my results for strength, endurance, and recovery, testing the change in my abilities playing baseball, soccer, running, and weightlifting. The difference of being on-cycle and off was phenomenal and if I was a professional athlete, I could never expect someone to vote me into any Hall of Fame with good conscience knowingly having used steroids. All of this testing and experimentation was done outside of the US as I have resided overseas for 25+ years and only nowadays make trips back for baseball season.

For baseball, strength and the ability to connect hitting a baseball was vastly improved, in soccer my strength was incredible, shots on goal harder and the ability to kick the ball up field farther, for running my endurance was through the roof and for weightlifting, my strength and especially my recovery was absolutely incredible. In most exercises my strength more than doubled and in most cases was 3 times or more then when off cycle. Also, I could weight lift 6 days a week on-cycle and only 2-3 off-cycle without being incredibly sore.

As I dont think many on this board have first hand experience with this, there is an incredible difference when on a cycle. I tried most steroids and each cycle was slightly different in length. My favorite was always Test E with Deca (felt like a million bucks everyday) and the most difficult was when I went on a Tren A cycle. Had to stop that one early.

I have been off cycle now for about 3.5 years and have completed wellness checks every year. Nothing is out of the ordinary such as BP, cholesterol, heart rate, etc etc. When I was on cycle my diet was top notch as I paid someone to cook my meals 5 days a week.

Of all the countries I have been too (which is over 130 at this moment), I find the subject of steroids to be the most taboo in the US. However, for older men, they can be a miracle for people who are thinking of TRT, etc. My cycles were never at the dosages that professional bodybuilders take, at those levels there can and are serious side effects, but taking them for performance enhancement at lower dosages they are miracle drugs.

Having done cycles myself, if I was even able to vote for the MLB HOF, in good faith I could never vote for known users.

[BeanTown]

Originally Posted by philo98

No opinion on Rose, but Bonds and Clemens no way. I'm a former steroid user for 8+ years and actually monitored my results for strength, endurance, and recovery, testing the change in my abilities playing baseball, soccer, running, and weightlifting. The difference of being on-cycle and off was phenomenal and if I was a professional athlete, I could never expect someone to vote me into any Hall of Fame with good conscience knowingly having used steroids. All of this testing and experimentation was done outside of the US as I have resided overseas for 25+ years and only nowadays make trips back for baseball season.

For baseball, strength and the ability to connect hitting a baseball was vastly improved, in soccer my strength was incredible, shots on goal harder and the ability to kick the ball up field farther, for running my endurance was through the roof and for weightlifting, my strength and especially my recovery was absolutely incredible. In most exercises my strength more than doubled and in most cases was 3 times or more then when off cycle. Also, I could weight lift 6 days a week on-cycle and only 2-3 off-cycle without being incredibly sore.

As I dont think many on this board have first hand experience with this, there is an incredible difference when on a cycle. I tried most steroids and each cycle was slightly different in length. My favorite was always Test E with Deca (felt like a million bucks everyday) and the most difficult was when I went on a Tren A cycle. Had to stop that one early.

I have been off cycle now for about 3.5 years and have completed wellness checks every year. Nothing is out of the ordinary such as BP, cholesterol, heart rate, etc etc. When I was on cycle my diet was top notch as I paid someone to cook my meals 5 days a week.

Of all the countries I have been too (which is over 130 at this moment), I find the subject of steroids to be the most taboo in the US. However, for older men, they can be a miracle for people who are thinking of TRT, etc. My cycles were never at the dosages that professional bodybuilders take, at those levels there can and are serious side effects, but taking them for performance enhancement at lower dosages they are miracle drugs.

Having done cycles myself, if I was even able to vote for the MLB HOF, in good faith I could never vote for known users.

Well said Ryan, and agreed that many from the Steroid era had an advantage. With that said, have a different room at the Hall. It’s history now just like past wars, the Great Depression, and COVID. Baseball made it through everything and it’s a timeline of our favorite pastime sport called baseball.

On a side note I bet you might get a couple of PMs on here since some of us collectors are over 50

[SyrNy1960]

Originally Posted by philo98

No opinion on Rose, but Bonds and Clemens no way. I'm a former steroid user for 8+ years and actually monitored my results for strength, endurance, and recovery, testing the change in my abilities playing baseball, soccer, running, and weightlifting. The difference of being on-cycle and off was phenomenal and if I was a professional athlete, I could never expect someone to vote me into any Hall of Fame with good conscience knowingly having used steroids. All of this testing and experimentation was done outside of the US as I have resided overseas for 25+ years and only nowadays make trips back for baseball season.

For baseball, strength and the ability to connect hitting a baseball was vastly improved, in soccer my strength was incredible, shots on goal harder and the ability to kick the ball up field farther, for running my endurance was through the roof and for weightlifting, my strength and especially my recovery was absolutely incredible. In most exercises my strength more than doubled and in most cases was 3 times or more then when off cycle. Also, I could weight lift 6 days a week on-cycle and only 2-3 off-cycle without being incredibly sore.

As I dont think many on this board have first hand experience with this, there is an incredible difference when on a cycle. I tried most steroids and each cycle was slightly different in length. My favorite was always Test E with Deca (felt like a million bucks everyday) and the most difficult was when I went on a Tren A cycle. Had to stop that one early.

I have been off cycle now for about 3.5 years and have completed wellness checks every year. Nothing is out of the ordinary such as BP, cholesterol, heart rate, etc etc. When I was on cycle my diet was top notch as I paid someone to cook my meals 5 days a week.

Of all the countries I have been too (which is over 130 at this moment), I find the subject of steroids to be the most taboo in the US. However, for older men, they can be a miracle for people who are thinking of TRT, etc. My cycles were never at the dosages that professional bodybuilders take, at those levels there can and are serious side effects, but taking them for performance enhancement at lower dosages they are miracle drugs.

Having done cycles myself, if I was even able to vote for the MLB HOF, in good faith I could never vote for known users.

Ryan,

Thanks for sharing your story. I think everyone can agree that steroids made a difference and gave those players an edge for sure.

[brian1961]

Originally Posted by philo98

No opinion on Rose, but Bonds and Clemens no way. I'm a former steroid user for 8+ years and actually monitored my results for strength, endurance, and recovery, testing the change in my abilities playing baseball, soccer, running, and weightlifting. The difference of being on-cycle and off was phenomenal and if I was a professional athlete, I could never expect someone to vote me into any Hall of Fame with good conscience knowingly having used steroids. All of this testing and experimentation was done outside of the US as I have resided overseas for 25+ years and only nowadays make trips back for baseball season.

For baseball, strength and the ability to connect hitting a baseball was vastly improved, in soccer my strength was incredible, shots on goal harder and the ability to kick the ball up field farther, for running my endurance was through the roof and for weightlifting, my strength and especially my recovery was absolutely incredible. In most exercises my strength more than doubled and in most cases was 3 times or more then when off cycle. Also, I could weight lift 6 days a week on-cycle and only 2-3 off-cycle without being incredibly sore.

As I dont think many on this board have first hand experience with this, there is an incredible difference when on a cycle. I tried most steroids and each cycle was slightly different in length. My favorite was always Test E with Deca (felt like a million bucks everyday) and the most difficult was when I went on a Tren A cycle. Had to stop that one early.

I have been off cycle now for about 3.5 years and have completed wellness checks every year. Nothing is out of the ordinary such as BP, cholesterol, heart rate, etc etc. When I was on cycle my diet was top notch as I paid someone to cook my meals 5 days a week.

Of all the countries I have been too (which is over 130 at this moment), I find the subject of steroids to be the most taboo in the US. However, for older men, they can be a miracle for people who are thinking of TRT, etc. My cycles were never at the dosages that professional bodybuilders take, at those levels there can and are serious side effects, but taking them for performance enhancement at lower dosages they are miracle drugs.

Having done cycles myself, if I was even able to vote for the MLB HOF, in good faith I could never vote for known users.

Ryan, thank you for your detailed testimony and frank comments on steroid use. I must say Ryan's post should be NET54 's 2023 Post of the Year.

With this thread, there's been a lot of members in favor of allowing the major successful cheaters to actually be enshrined in the BBHOF. For shame. Yes, they may have had hall of fame careers going when they began using steroids, but so had Joe Jackson when he was caught up in the fixing of the 1919 World Series.

Just as Canada's "Big Ben" Johnson was stripped of his Olympic Gold Medal for testing positive to steroids after winning the 1988 Olympic Mens 100 meter dash finals, and was sent home in disgrace, the baseball players who greatly enhanced their numbers on the playing field should be disgraced every time a Baseball Hall of Fame election ballot comes up.

For what it's worth, the cheaters were not stripped of their exorbitant salaries they were paid during those years, but you better believe they should be stripped of any chance to be enshrined. --- Brian Powell

[SteveMitchell]

I found Ryan's post very impressive. I'm wondering: How many changes from positive Clemens and Bonds votes to the negative occurred? While not an absolute purist, I don't want the Baseball Hall of Fame to degenerate into a caricature of its former self.

Originally Posted by philo98

No opinion on Rose, but Bonds and Clemens no way. I'm a former steroid user for 8+ years and actually monitored my results for strength, endurance, and recovery, testing the change in my abilities playing baseball, soccer, running, and weightlifting. The difference of being on-cycle and off was phenomenal and if I was a professional athlete, I could never expect someone to vote me into any Hall of Fame with good conscience knowingly having used steroids. All of this testing and experimentation was done outside of the US as I have resided overseas for 25+ years and only nowadays make trips back for baseball season.

For baseball, strength and the ability to connect hitting a baseball was vastly improved, in soccer my strength was incredible, shots on goal harder and the ability to kick the ball up field farther, for running my endurance was through the roof and for weightlifting, my strength and especially my recovery was absolutely incredible. In most exercises my strength more than doubled and in most cases was 3 times or more then when off cycle. Also, I could weight lift 6 days a week on-cycle and only 2-3 off-cycle without being incredibly sore.

As I dont think many on this board have first hand experience with this, there is an incredible difference when on a cycle. I tried most steroids and each cycle was slightly different in length. My favorite was always Test E with Deca (felt like a million bucks everyday) and the most difficult was when I went on a Tren A cycle. Had to stop that one early.

I have been off cycle now for about 3.5 years and have completed wellness checks every year. Nothing is out of the ordinary such as BP, cholesterol, heart rate, etc etc. When I was on cycle my diet was top notch as I paid someone to cook my meals 5 days a week.

Of all the countries I have been too (which is over 130 at this moment), I find the subject of steroids to be the most taboo in the US. However, for older men, they can be a miracle for people who are thinking of TRT, etc. My cycles were never at the dosages that professional bodybuilders take, at those levels there can and are serious side effects, but taking them for performance enhancement at lower dosages they are miracle drugs.

Having done cycles myself, if I was even able to vote for the MLB HOF, in good faith I could never vote for known users.

[GeoPoto]

(This is off the top of my head) In 1998, Barry Bonds became the first player with 400 HRs and 400 SBs. Bonds' appearance hadn't yet changed. He got little recognition as the media obsessed about the exploits of McGwire and Sosa. Finally, a reporter wrote of seeing tubes of the clear in McGwire's locker. The resulting hullabaloo led by Tony LaRusa focused on the ethics of the reporter and whether or not he should be banned from the locker room for violating McGwire's privacy. The business of baseball marched on. Bonds was all but shamed into using. Most people would follow his path. Take away his HR record if you have to, but put him in the hall.

Sent from my motorola edge 5G UW (2021) using Tapatalk

[packs]

Originally Posted by Snowman

No, of course not. He could do something stupid like putting tomorrow's SP on the mound in the bottom of the 8th in a tie game. That would increase his chances of winning today at the expense of tomorrow's game. But it'd also be a really stupid thing to do, and it wouldn't matter for tomorrow's game anyhow, because him doing that would change the betting line for the next day. No advantage can be obtained for tomorrow's game.

But I think what you're intending to ask, and if not, I'll propose the question as many have alluded to this above, is whether Pete changing his management approach to win today might create an opportunity for betting on tomorrow's game to be exploited by his actions today. And the answer to that is 'no', he cannot. Whatever actions he takes today will get baked in to tomorrow's betting lines. The only way he could cheat is by throwing a game and betting against his team.

But even in the example above, where Pete throws tomorrow's SP in the 8th to win a game, it would only gain him an advantage a few times at most. Because the betting lines would be set under the assumption that he wouldn't do something as stupid as this, but once he shows that he very well might do that in future games, the market betting lines will adjust. He could not gain an advantage even in this situation over the course of a season.

No gambler bets on himself to win every bet they make. Therefore, Rose had to have bet on himself to lose games too. There is no way around that truth.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by packs

No gambler bets on himself to win every bet they make. Therefore, Rose had to have bet on himself to lose games too. There is no way around that truth.

This is, of course, utter nonsense.

[packs]

What makes it nonsense? He was a compulsive gambler. If he wanted to bet on any given day then he was going to bet. He's played the game his entire life. When did he ever win every game?