TDA Bullpen - Our Writers' Blog

Wednesday, January 07, 2004

The Hall of Fame choices were interesting this year, given the context of Pete Rose. One stream of thought we've been getting a lot over the past few days is "Pete picked the wrong addiction, if he had been an alcoholic or a drug abuser, he would have been given a million second chances."

Dennis Eckersley wasted the first half of his career, drinking his talent away. Paul Molitor moved from weed to cocaine before cleaning up his act. So here is a pair of examples of addicts who were in fact given second chances, and moved their games to the highest level.

But there's a big difference. Once Eckersley and Molitor addressed their problems, when the fans saw them they could be fairly sure they were seeing something on the level. These players could piss in a cup and get a clean bill of health. How many people wondered "Gee, what was going on there?" when Eck or Molitor screwed up? They didn't have to worry about the validity of what was going on between the white lines, baseball was testing to make sure everything was on the level. But what test is there for gambling? Outside of a private eye following a player 24/7, how can you make sure things are legit? If a gambler is given a second chance, most of the crowd is going to groan about every mistake the player makes, wondering if he has fallen back into his old habits. That's why gambling is more central to the "integrity of the game" than those other addictions.

Speaking of integrity, Pete is still lying to us. When asked about gambling, his response was "The farthest thing from my mind right now is making a bet on anything." Except that he's a known legal gambler. He drops money on the horses all of the time. If he wants to really clean up his image, then he should drop all gambling. So long as he is gambling, he should at least cop up to "I still bet on the ponies, but baseball is out of the question, even now that I'm no longer involved." Secondly, he told Bud Selig that he never placed bets from the clubhouse, even though witnesses and phone records show this not to be true. After 14 years, lying is as hard a habit to drop as gambling...

posted by David 9:54 AM

Tuesday, January 06, 2004

It's easy to poke fun at San Diego's PETCO Park. While I'm sure that it will be a gem when it comes to watching games there, the name is really silly. PETCO? Please... Still, it could have been much worse. It could have been Sycuan Stadium.

A recent Padres logo Copyright San Diego Padres, image presented under "fair use"

Since 2000 the Sycuan tribe has been "sponsoring" the San Diego Padres. Their name shows up on tickets, programs, more or less anywhere the Padres logo is, it is followed by "presented by Sycuan." This isn't about raising awareness of Native American (I don't think that the NCAAP or the JDL will be sposoring teams anytime soon), it is about advertising the local casino.

That's right, major league baseball's restrictions about associating with gambling interests don't seem to apply to taking money from casinos. The Padres hem and haw about the fact that while you can play poker and blackjack at the casino, you can't place a bet on baseball there. Somehow this distinction makes everything kosher.

A few years back I went to the Midwest League All-Star game. That year it was held in Lansing, MI. When I opened the program I found a large at for the local "Adult toy store". Given that baseball projects a "family-friendly" image, somewhere along the way somebody should have called up the store and told them that their ad was not proper for the program, refunded their payment, and wished them luck. Major League Baseball took that step when Sycuan attempted to buy naming rights for the new stadium in San Diego. Thank you for your interest, but we don't think that assocation with your business works well with our goals and interests. The Padres should take the next step and sever all ties with Sycuan. For Pete's sake, do the right thing.

posted by David 8:46 AM

Monday, January 05, 2004

Took you long enough, Charlie Hustle!

Is anyone surprised that Pete Rose has finally admitted that he bet on baseball and on the team he was managing at the time, the Cincinatti Reds? I don't think so. But now that we know that he actually did the dirty deed, as opposed to lying about it for the past decade, he's presented one giant snowball (or is it a knuckleball?) of a controversy for us to debate in the coming year or so. Will Bud Selig break down and reinstate Rose in order for the Hall of Fame to even consider him? If that were to happen, would writers ignore the fact that he's eligible and leave Rose off their ballots? And finally...do we really care?

I've always believed that, no matter what a player does off the field, his numbers and career stats should be the only factors in considering him for the Hall of Fame. I know that Rose bet on baseball and on his own team. I acknowledge that it's despicable and crosses the line between on-field and off-field behavior. If he had done it as a player, we could certainly say that it affected and eventually nullified his stellar numbers.

But the voters aren't deciding whether to let him in as a MANAGER. As a player he had a stellar career, and maybe overstayed his welcome in the league (the man finally retired at the ripe age of 45), but in a sport where numbers almost always tell the tale, his stats overwhelmingly spell Hall of Famer. He wasn't a power hitter (career high a modest 16 dingers). But he was above all a hitting machine (4,256 to be exact, and 10 seasons with over 200 hits), and for those achievements along with his role on the Big Red Machine, his plaque should be up there with the rest. It's not called the Hall of Fame for Saints and Angels. Babe Ruth was certainly no saint, and sure enough, George Herman Ruth is deified as one of baseball's gods.

But as former Commissioner Fay Vincent and a slew of writers point out, if you take Rose off the banned list, you might as well take everyone else off too. Shoeless Joe Jackson, who went a giant step beyond than Rose and bet against his team while playing in the World Series, would then become Hall of Fame-worthy. While I'm sure Selig will say that this issue is strictly about Rose, the current Commish will have to answer questions about the rest of the lifetime ban list.

Selig's decision won't come for a while as he weighs his own feelings as well as the wishes of A. Bartlett Giamatti, the late commissioner who banned Rose for life. Over last summer, Selig reported that he was listening to various opinions about whether to allow Rose back into baseball. If he does, everyone will agree to disagree on this issue. The more intriguing aspects of this story are the timing of his admission (can you say "buy my book! Here's a preview!") as well as his lack of remorse in the past. Why didn't he admit it back then? It would have saved us the massive ulcer embedded in baseball that keeps increasing in size.

This controversy won't end tomorrow, but at least we know it begins today, since there's one question definitely answered. Let the arguments rage on.

posted by Charles Curtis 4:21 PM

---

Tug McGraw passed today - here is an article penned by James Floto last year:

Many years ago, a young boy named Tim Washington happened on a box in his house that contained his birth certificate, which he had never seen before. The document said young Mr. Washington's father's name was Frank McGraw, a man baseball fans know as former Mets and Phillies reliever Tug McGraw.

"Mom!" we picture young Tim hollering as he ran after his mother, birth certificate in hand. "What does this mean?"

What it meant was that a younger Mrs. Washington, before she was married, had an affair with McGraw when he was a minor leaguer playing for a team in Georgia, where she was then living. Although the pitcher didn't want anything to do with raising the boy, he did send money. At the time he discovered who he was, Tim, a big baseball fan, had photos of four baseball players on his wall, one of whom was Tug McGraw.

When Tim, then about age 10, got over the shock of learning that the man who had been raising him was actually his stepfather, he pressured his mom to allow him to get in touch with Tug. Tim did meet his genetic father, but the relationship didn't progress any further until Tim was about 21. In the ensuing years, Tim had not only been a successful high school athlete, demonstrating his father's genes, but also had become a hotshot Country and Western singer.

After Tim became of age, Tug started hanging out with his "freeway baby". They became good friends. They have gone to ballgames together, and Tug has come and seen Tim, now a giant in the C&W genre, perform. As to their relationship, Tim says that he feels like the father and that his goofy, practical joking Pop is more like the kid

posted by David 1:17 PM

What's Legit?
Let's turn the Wayback machine to 1999. On the last day of the season the Houston Astros hosted the LA Dodgers. This was a pennant race that went down to the wire, and the Astros, Reds and Mets all had a shot at the playoffs. The Dodgers, on the other hand, were out of the running. On top of this, their scheduled starter, Ismael Valdez, was away from team because his father had suffered an accident.

Did LA manager Davey Johnson start ace Kevin Brown a "day early"? No, he gave Brown the rest of the season off. And he let Gary Sheffield sit to protect a .300 batting average. Instead, Robinson Checo got the start. Checo looked OK when he struck out Biggio, but he then walked four batters, gave up a double and then walked another batter. Before two outs were collected against the Astros, the game was more or less over.

While baseball managers are given huge amounts of leeway when it comes to filling out their lineups, no Brown and no Sheffield left a bad taste in the mouth. If the Dodgers had a shot at the post-season, you could be sure both would have been in the game. Davey Johnson had been fired by both the Reds and Mets, and hence had some bad blood against those franchises; with that in mind it would have been proper to put his very best on the field rather than serve up a crucial game on a silver plater for the Astros. It looks a little fishy that he didn't and fans of both the Reds and Mets have the right to ask some serious questions. Now imagine how much worse things would look if it came out that Davey Johnson was $500,000 in debt to gambling interests.

Pete Rose has now admitted to betting on baseball, and on betting on his own team (although not against his own team). John Dowd, who investigated Pete Rose for MLB, estimated that Rose owed $500,000 in gambling debts. With this in mind, would you wonder what was going on every time Rose benched a star player? Not to say that Rose was involved in actually throwing a game, but baseball needs to protect itself from even a whiff of a scandal. This is a sport that lost its Championship Series to gamblers. Gambling on baseball was once so common that it even sneaks into mythology:


A straggling few got up to go in deep despair.
The rest clung to that hope which springs eternal in the human breast.
They thought, "if only Casey could but get a whack at that.
We'd put up even money now, with Casey at the bat."


The rules are there for good reason, and they are clear. Bet on baseball, you are out for a year. Bet on your own team (for or against), gone forever.

posted by David 10:58 AM