EVER NOTICE JOSE OFFERMAN AND CARL EVERETT ARE NEVER IN THE SAME ROOM?
Posted by tgl on 2007-08-17 04:59:00 +0000
This reminds me of a comment Bill Littlefield made on Only A Game or ATC a little while ago concerning the NBA referee gambling revelation. It wasn't so much about the gambling per se, but the Commissioner Stern's response to it. Stern had said this was the worse thing to happen to the NBA in 40 years. Littlefield thought that players storming the stands to attack spectators, or players beating their wives should be considered a little more serious.
Likewise, Offerman (overheard at Fenway: "Hey, Off Her, Man!"). Baseball fans want to whine about steroids, when there are thugs like Nelson & Garcia on the loose.
(A quick check on baseball-reference.com shows that J. Nelson and K. Garcia are no longer active, but Brett Myers has 11 saves for the Phillies this year).
Posted by tommy on 2007-08-17 08:17:14 +0000
I think there's a difference here that's important.
Steroids and ref gambling affect the integrity of the actual game being played. That game you're watching isn't what you think it is.
Violence -- on and off the field -- is different. There's lots of reasons to dislike wife-beaters and crowd-pummelers, but they don't affect the authenticity of the game you're watching.
Steroids/gambling affects fans like finding out that that "crazy bride" in the Youtube video was really an actress, and it was all a setup.
Violence affects fans like finding out that your favorite movie actor is a total asshole.
Over the long term, sports leagues can probably cope with a few violent asshole players. Leagues can expel them; fans can root against them. I don't think they can cope if people start thinking that the games are fixed, though.
Posted by tommy on 2007-08-17 08:19:54 +0000
L: Let me just backpedal on that a bit. Crowd-pummelers are fucking awesome.
Posted by tgl on 2007-08-17 08:39:36 +0000
I guess I don't see steroids as effecting the integrity of the game. Likewise, gambling & sports go hand-in-hand. Assholes are always assholes.
Posted by tgl on 2007-08-17 08:39:53 +0000
Point taken.
Posted by tendiamonds on 2007-08-17 08:53:36 +0000
Is there any context for that?
Posted by tendiamonds on 2007-08-17 08:58:37 +0000
Just gambling would probably not be an issue, I agree.
It's the prospect of that leading to fixing the games that is the big deal.
Posted by tommy on 2007-08-17 09:47:20 +0000
I'm not sure what started the whole deal. The legend is that Mike Milbury kept the guy's shoe.
That's gotta be humiliating: getting beaten with your own shoe, and then having to walk home half-barefoot.
Posted by tgl on 2007-08-17 10:32:09 +0000
Fixed games are troubling, sure, but that's just part of the entertainment. I wouldn't trade perfectly officiated games for the human element that leads to chewing out the ref.
Put another way: Isn't the NFL becoming sort of soulless, with the instant replay and everything? L: Well yes it is. Although, the whole drama around the strategic use of the coach's challenge is sort of fun.
Back to the NBA: Did this ref. actually put the fix in or did he use his superior knowledge of refing staffs to improve his odds?
On a related note: Pete Rose should be in the Hall.
Posted by tommy on 2007-08-17 12:46:52 +0000
I still think there's a big difference between a ref intentionally calling something wrong, and a ref calling something wrong due to incompetence.
I can live with a little incompetence... it adds flavor and makes for good stories afterwards.
Posted by Epoisses on 2007-08-17 18:42:04 +0000
Re: Pete in the Hall -- whatever. Dude lied about gambling for twenty-plus years, then profited from his lies by putting out a book about 'em. He's a piece of shit, and he did it to himself. No way. Fuck him.
Posted by tgl on 2007-08-18 05:40:55 +0000
I guess I can't really defend intentionally making bad calls (or missing legitimate calls).
Posted by tgl on 2007-08-18 05:44:48 +0000
Peter Rose may be a piece or shit, but he still has 4256 hits.
Posted by ConorClockwise on 2007-08-18 12:44:50 +0000
He never bet against the team he played for.
He played unbelievably hard, maybe the hardest ever.
He always agreed to play any position in the field.
He has the most hits ever, and I believe the second most runs scored.
= First ballot hall of famer.
I hope Bonds gets busted enough so that he does not go into the hall with the most homers ever*.
Posted by tgl on 2007-08-18 13:33:13 +0000
Rose is currently sixth for career runs. Number two is that paragon of morality, and Hall of Famer, Ty Cobb.
Posted by ConorClockwise on 2007-08-18 22:06:35 +0000
My bad.
Wow, Cap Anson in the top 10.
Posted by Epoisses on 2007-08-19 20:19:28 +0000
He bet on baseball, which has always, ALWAYS been completely forbidden.
And he did it while he was a manager.
And he bet on his own team to win, but not all the time, because he didn't always think they'd win. Bookies knew when he bet for his own team, and adjusted the odds accordingly when he didn't.
I don't think it can be both ways -- if Rose gets in, then the juicers deserve to be in there, too.
Posted by tgl on 2007-08-20 06:21:56 +0000
Yes, gamblers & juicers. It doesn't bother me. Of course, I'll probably never go to Cooperstown.