Pete has a point.  And I think MLB was beginning to lean towards reinstating him if he came clean.  But he came clean through a book.  As a means to make money.  If I remember correctly, this rubbed a lot of people the wrong way.

Gambling is far worse than PEDs. 

For proof see the 1989 and the 1990 Cincinnati Reds results.

The only way Pete's contention about "betting on the Reds to win" holds ANY weight is if he had a standing bet for the same amount for every single game.

Otherwise, he's basically telling the gamblers how hard he's gonna try to win, based on the size of his bets.

It's been a long time since I've put any real thought into the Pete Rose case, but as I remember there was never any evidence that he made any moves as manager that would indicate that he was trying to lose any particular game, nor was there ever any betting slips that showed that he did in fact bet against the Reds to lose any particular games. 

Is that correct?

Posted by tecwrg on 7/25/2013 3:12:00 PM (view original):
It's been a long time since I've put any real thought into the Pete Rose case, but as I remember there was never any evidence that he made any moves as manager that would indicate that he was trying to lose any particular game, nor was there ever any betting slips that showed that he did in fact bet against the Reds to lose any particular games. 

Is that correct?

People on this site don't worry about facts.

IIRC, he claims he bet on every Reds game, and there are documents that show he bet on nearly every game.  What kind of documents, I'm not sure.  Nobody has ever claimed he bet against his own team.

Posted by raucous on 7/25/2013 2:43:00 PM (view original):
Gambling is far worse than PEDs. 

For proof see the 1989 and the 1990 Cincinnati Reds results.

I'm not sure what this means.  The 90 team was more talented.  A manager can only do so much to screw up his team, just like a manager can only do so much to help his team.  If you managed the 90 Reds, there's a good chance they'd be a .500 team.

The 1990 team was basically the same as the 89 team...  The closer was different. 

In games Rose was betting on the Reds to win, he would empty the bullpen out to win those games.  Well, Dibble, Charlton, Franco, et al. got exhausted and then the following games he didn't bet they would lose since they had to trot out the dregs.

90 team had Armstrong pitching.  Had a better year from Jackson.  Charlton pitched more innings, even started some games.  Had Duncan playing 2nd.  An old Ken Griffey was gone.  

Regardless, you're saying that Pete Rose, who won money when his team won, managed his team in a way where they ultimately lost more games than he could have?  Again, it looks as though he bet on his team almost every game.

Then he would have been found at the bottom of the Ohio River, with all of the money he owed and with all of the money he lost for the broken nose crowd.

So Billy Hatcher, Jack's 12-9 record, and Randy Myers over John Franco in his prime is worth 16 wins?  BTW, Griffey's 1989 season was a lot better than Hatcher's 1990 season. 

It isn't that simple raucous, Larkin played a full year in '90 as did Sabo both of whom missed nearly half the year in '89. Mariano Duncan showed up with an .821 OPS at second base instead of Oester's .622, and Hal Morris came on the scene to give them some offense out of first base instead of the giant black hole that Benzinger was. (I mean really, a firstbaseman with a .245/.293/.381 line, and they gave him nearly 700 PAs? ) Finally, the '90 Reds were 50-29 at the all star break and then played .500 the rest of the way (41-42) to finish 91-61, during that 1st half Armstrong was 11-3 with a 2.28ERA and a 1.09 Whip. I think it is fair to say he made a big difference in that 1st half of the season. (though he was terrible in the second half going 1-6)

What he did, what he didn't do and what can be proven are things we'll never know. 

However, if you've ever played anything for "funsies" and then played the same thing for money, you know how you play is different.    Do you think Pete is above that?

Do I think he's above it?  Hell no. I think his overall behavior attests to that. To be clear I personally have little doubt that if he had a big bet down he'd manage differently, my only point was that his managing wasn't the only difference between '89 and '90.