Thread Like Summary
FORTBROWNFAN, Milk Man, PitDAWG, tastybrownies
Total Likes: 4
Original Post (Thread Starter)
#2077571 08/16/2024 2:15 AM
by lampdogg
lampdogg
I’ll cut to the chase: he should be inducted into Cooperstown before he dies. He wasn’t a great person and could be quite the arse from what I’ve read, very self-centred, and he gambled on his team when he was manager of the Reds. Yeah, that’s bad and I get it.

But he still holds the record for career hits, and MLB, along with every other major sport, certainly doesn’t mind raking in the cash with unending gambling advertisements on TV. That’s not quite hypocritical but it ain’t far from it.
Put him in.
Liked Replies
#2077703 Aug 17th a 12:55 PM
by FORTBROWNFAN
FORTBROWNFAN
Originally Posted by Milk Man
Originally Posted by FORTBROWNFAN
On a somewhat related side note regarding Joe Jackson and the movie Eight Men Out, there was one scene I felt was sort of disingenuous. When Ray Kinsella (Kevin Costner) was talking to Joe Jackson (Ray Liotta) about how much he missed playing ball, Joe said I would have played for food money. Well, if you would have played for food money, why did you take $10,000 from gamblers?


You seem to be confusing 'Eight Men Out' with the fictitious movie, 'Field of Dreams.' Ray Kinsella was Costner's character in FoD. As was Ray Liotta playing Shoeless Joe Jackson.

Yep, and not sure how I would have done that. I have watched both movies multiple times and think they are both great.

I do realize FOD was a "story" while Eight Men Out was somewhat based in truth. My point was the character of JJ (who it was at least implied he was the same guy kicked out for betting or taking gamblers' money) stated in the movie he would have played for food yet took $10,000 from gamblers. I just found the character and the comment to be morally inconsistent.
1 member likes this
#2077967 Aug 18th a 09:29 PM
by FATE
FATE
You know, I got back under the hood of this thing because it had been so long.

A couple things became clear...

Pete sucked at gambling. He had accumulated $400,000 in losses in three months during the 1987 season.

He had at least three bookmakers, we've seen their records, he never bet against the Reds.


So first, with records of over 50 Reds games being bet on, and those records being procured during a raid, if he had bet against the Reds, I'd think we would know it.

But second, we're asking the wrong question! It's not whether he ever bet against the Reds -- that's just a stepstone to "proof" that he may have influenced games. With the kind of debt he was racking up, I would be more concerned with making sure all the numbers matched (debt vs checking account).

Think about it -- Pete owes the bookie 400G -- it's much more likely the book tells him how to reduce that debt *wink, wink* than for Pete to dig out of a hole by placing his own bets and tossing games. And if that's the case? The bookmaker would tell Pete that if he personally bets on these games he's throwing, there will be someone there to break his legs the next morning, because the "big boys" want plausible deniability.
1 member likes this
#2077678 Aug 17th a 03:18 AM
by Milk Man
Milk Man
On a related note, Max (HBO) is currently streaming an original docuseries on Pete Rose titled, 'Charlie Hustle & The Matter of Pete Rose.'
1 member likes this
#2078270 Aug 21st a 11:11 PM
by lampdogg
lampdogg
Disagreement is fine my fellow Canuck, but 4,256 career hits, a career batting average over .300, three World Series titles and 17 Gold Gloves is not infamous, it’s legendary.
1 member likes this
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5