06-18-2014, 03:45 PM
Ah got it.  :)
What happened to LSJU's rich track heritage?
06-18-2014, 06:31 PM
(06-18-2014, 09:51 AM)Stymie link Wrote:In baseball there are great players and HOF players, and the GPs are a very small subset of the HOFP's, plus a few outliers. Rose and Shoeless Joe will always each be one of the very few outliers amongst that set of the very few (less than 50) players who deserved to be called "great," but neither will be in the HOF (at least in my lifetime).
I am sure this will kill my respect score, but I don't think what Shoeless Joe did and what Pete did are remotely comparable. One bet on his team to win. One took money to lose. Both broke the rules, but with different intentions and different results. Rick Neuheisal broke the rules, too, and although awkward to place in the same paragraph as Joe and Pete, his transgression was betting yet went on to coaching jobs and analyst jobs. If Pete solely bet on his team to win, I see no difference between that and a horse owner betting on his horse to win. Except one is against the rules and the other isn't.
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip." W. Churchill
(06-18-2014, 09:51 AM)Stymie link Wrote:In baseball there are great players and HOF players, and the GPs are a very small subset of the HOFP's, plus a few outliers. Rose and Shoeless Joe will always each be one of the very few outliers amongst that set of the very few (less than 50) players who deserved to be called "great," but neither will be in the HOF (at least in my lifetime).
I am sure this will kill my respect score, but I don't think what Shoeless Joe did and what Pete did are remotely comparable. One bet on his team to win. One took money to lose. Both broke the rules, but with different intentions and different results. Rick Neuheisal broke the rules, too, and although awkward to place in the same paragraph as Joe and Pete, his transgression was betting yet went on to coaching jobs and analyst jobs. If Pete solely bet on his team to win, I see no difference between that and a horse owner betting on his horse to win. Except one is against the rules and the other isn't.
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip." W. Churchill
06-18-2014, 09:24 PM
I basically agree with Ferrari's points, though if Pete bet on his team to beat the spread, not just to win (did he? Dunno), I'd say that is worse than a racehorse owner betting on his own horse. Trying to beat the spread could distort one's approach to the game in a way that hurts the team.
I basically agree with Ferrari's points, though if Pete bet on his team to beat the spread, not just to win (did he? Dunno), I'd say that is worse than a racehorse owner betting on his own horse. Trying to beat the spread could distort one's approach to the game in a way that hurts the team.
06-18-2014, 09:57 PM
Say Pete put a lot of money on his team to win one game...then left a starter or reliever in a little longer than he normally would have...or used a guy in the lineup that should have gotten the day off, just to get that particular win. Then there are possible consequences down the season, no? Maybe he did that, maybe he didn't but even betting on your own team, I can see the potential's there for harm to the game. And say you keep betting on your own team to win...but you're not doing so well at it and you end up owing some bad guys a lot of money, what are the possibilities then?
Say Pete put a lot of money on his team to win one game...then left a starter or reliever in a little longer than he normally would have...or used a guy in the lineup that should have gotten the day off, just to get that particular win. Then there are possible consequences down the season, no? Maybe he did that, maybe he didn't but even betting on your own team, I can see the potential's there for harm to the game. And say you keep betting on your own team to win...but you're not doing so well at it and you end up owing some bad guys a lot of money, what are the possibilities then?
06-18-2014, 11:09 PM
Good points, CI. I had similar thoughts about trying to beat the spread -- leaving in players too long to run up the score if you were favored, or if the opponent was favored, being content to lose by a narrow margin. But similar abuses could be motivated just by having bet on some games but not others, or more on some games than others. And of course running up debts to bad guys and thus putting yourself in their power is dangerous in its own way.
Good points, CI. I had similar thoughts about trying to beat the spread -- leaving in players too long to run up the score if you were favored, or if the opponent was favored, being content to lose by a narrow margin. But similar abuses could be motivated just by having bet on some games but not others, or more on some games than others. And of course running up debts to bad guys and thus putting yourself in their power is dangerous in its own way.
06-19-2014, 06:43 AM
(06-18-2014, 06:31 PM)ferrari link Wrote:[quote author=Stymie link=topic=9839.msg91278#msg91278 date=1403110290]
In baseball there are great players and HOF players, and the GPs are a very small subset of the HOFP's, plus a few outliers. Rose and Shoeless Joe will always each be one of the very few outliers amongst that set of the very few (less than 50) players who deserved to be called "great," but neither will be in the HOF (at least in my lifetime).
I am sure this will kill my respect score, but I don't think what Shoeless Joe did and what Pete did are remotely comparable. One bet on his team to win. One took money to lose. Both broke the rules, but with different intentions and different results. Rick Neuheisal broke the rules, too, and although awkward to place in the same paragraph as Joe and Pete, his transgression was betting yet went on to coaching jobs and analyst jobs. If Pete solely bet on his team to win, I see no difference between that and a horse owner betting on his horse to win. Except one is against the rules and the other isn't.
[/quote]
Good points Mr. Ferrari (can I call you Enzo)?
I'm pretty Manichean when it comes to morality, and I side with the dark side. This is not because I "believe" in "evil," but because I am of the opinion that if we limited all of our Halls of "Fame" to people who have never cheated or lied (even if we just care about that part of their lives when they were doing whatever it was to make them "Famous") these "Halls" would be empty. We all cheat or lie, starting out before we even know what these words mean, as young children. Most of us (including me) try to minimize these transgressions in our adult life, but I do not know a single person who has ever been 100% successful in this regard. So, why not have our Halls of Fame be for those who managed to sparkle in the firmaments of our games, even if briefly and even slightly or significantly imorally? Maybe even Rosie Ruiz should be in the Boston Marathon Hall of Fame? To me she sparkles, even if only for the incredible chutzpah of her time in the sun (or out of the sun when she was riding the bus, as it may have been.....).
PS--Don't worry about your "respect score," Enzo. By calling me out you probably are swimming in +++++'s by now.
All models are wrong; some models are useful......
George Box
(06-18-2014, 06:31 PM)ferrari link Wrote:[quote author=Stymie link=topic=9839.msg91278#msg91278 date=1403110290]
In baseball there are great players and HOF players, and the GPs are a very small subset of the HOFP's, plus a few outliers. Rose and Shoeless Joe will always each be one of the very few outliers amongst that set of the very few (less than 50) players who deserved to be called "great," but neither will be in the HOF (at least in my lifetime).
I am sure this will kill my respect score, but I don't think what Shoeless Joe did and what Pete did are remotely comparable. One bet on his team to win. One took money to lose. Both broke the rules, but with different intentions and different results. Rick Neuheisal broke the rules, too, and although awkward to place in the same paragraph as Joe and Pete, his transgression was betting yet went on to coaching jobs and analyst jobs. If Pete solely bet on his team to win, I see no difference between that and a horse owner betting on his horse to win. Except one is against the rules and the other isn't.
[/quote]
Good points Mr. Ferrari (can I call you Enzo)?
I'm pretty Manichean when it comes to morality, and I side with the dark side. This is not because I "believe" in "evil," but because I am of the opinion that if we limited all of our Halls of "Fame" to people who have never cheated or lied (even if we just care about that part of their lives when they were doing whatever it was to make them "Famous") these "Halls" would be empty. We all cheat or lie, starting out before we even know what these words mean, as young children. Most of us (including me) try to minimize these transgressions in our adult life, but I do not know a single person who has ever been 100% successful in this regard. So, why not have our Halls of Fame be for those who managed to sparkle in the firmaments of our games, even if briefly and even slightly or significantly imorally? Maybe even Rosie Ruiz should be in the Boston Marathon Hall of Fame? To me she sparkles, even if only for the incredible chutzpah of her time in the sun (or out of the sun when she was riding the bus, as it may have been.....).
PS--Don't worry about your "respect score," Enzo. By calling me out you probably are swimming in +++++'s by now.
All models are wrong; some models are useful......
George Box
06-19-2014, 06:50 AM
Open a Hall of Shame wing. Stick Shoeless Joe, Charlie Hustle, and the Steroid Gang in there. Problem solved.
Open a Hall of Shame wing. Stick Shoeless Joe, Charlie Hustle, and the Steroid Gang in there. Problem solved.
06-19-2014, 07:12 AM
I spoke with someone about the Rose ban from baseball recently that changed my view on the matter slightly. I've always thought it ridiculous that he would be banned for betting on his team to win. Apparently golfers in Europe and horse owners do this all the time. Why should it be bad in baseball. The point my friend made was that just by associating with bookies, you're tainted. What if you bet on your team to win and end up in the hole to a bookie? Then you start throwing games or shaving points to help clear your debt. While it seems somewhat un-American to make someone guilty by association, with MLB's history, they need to avoid any appearance of game fixing.
I spoke with someone about the Rose ban from baseball recently that changed my view on the matter slightly. I've always thought it ridiculous that he would be banned for betting on his team to win. Apparently golfers in Europe and horse owners do this all the time. Why should it be bad in baseball. The point my friend made was that just by associating with bookies, you're tainted. What if you bet on your team to win and end up in the hole to a bookie? Then you start throwing games or shaving points to help clear your debt. While it seems somewhat un-American to make someone guilty by association, with MLB's history, they need to avoid any appearance of game fixing.
06-19-2014, 08:15 AM
(06-19-2014, 07:12 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:I spoke with someone about the Rose ban from baseball recently that changed my view on the matter slightly. I've always thought it ridiculous that he would be banned for betting on his team to win. Apparently golfers in Europe and horse owners do this all the time. Why should it be bad in baseball. The point my friend made was that just by associating with bookies, you're tainted. What if you bet on your team to win and end up in the hole to a bookie? Then you start throwing games or shaving points to help clear your debt. While it seems somewhat un-American to make someone guilty by association, with MLB's history, they need to avoid any appearance of game fixing.
Should we prevent European golfers and jockeys from participating in their sports when the event is on American soil then?
Audaces fortuna iuvat
(06-19-2014, 07:12 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:I spoke with someone about the Rose ban from baseball recently that changed my view on the matter slightly. I've always thought it ridiculous that he would be banned for betting on his team to win. Apparently golfers in Europe and horse owners do this all the time. Why should it be bad in baseball. The point my friend made was that just by associating with bookies, you're tainted. What if you bet on your team to win and end up in the hole to a bookie? Then you start throwing games or shaving points to help clear your debt. While it seems somewhat un-American to make someone guilty by association, with MLB's history, they need to avoid any appearance of game fixing.
Should we prevent European golfers and jockeys from participating in their sports when the event is on American soil then?
Audaces fortuna iuvat
06-19-2014, 11:17 AM
Quote:Pretty sure Pete Rose didn't bet on the Reds to win 162 times a year. And every time he didn't, he was in effect sending insider dope to other gamblers.
Another excellent point.
How is betting on baseball done? Against the spread?
06-19-2014, 01:54 PM
When they used to publish this stuff in the paper I seem to remember it was against odds...like horse racing. But I may be having a bad flashback, too.
When they used to publish this stuff in the paper I seem to remember it was against odds...like horse racing. But I may be having a bad flashback, too.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »