They've got a baseball application where you can let the world know who your favorite teams and players are, and you can totally make a complete douche of yourself on the forums. With a constant supply of chatterbox highschoolers and meathead frat-tards there's a constant supply of the latter.
And it keeps coming up over and over and over...
"Sure Pete Rose bet on baseball, but he bet for his own team to win. There's no harm in that. In fact, isn't that like an incentive to win?"
#!$%.
First of all, there's a reason why gambling, ANY form of it, is banned in baseball. If you happen to be betting on your team, it really doesn't take much for you to bet against your team. It's easy to put money on your team when your '89 Reds are playing the abysmal '89 Braves, but is it so easy to to cash in on your team when you're playing the '89 Giants (who were NL champs)?
People often say that since he bet on his team to win he wasn't harming or effecting any outcomes. I then punch those people in their dumb mouths. Take, for example, this completely plausible situation:
The Reds are playing a close game, but Rose doesn't have any cash riding on this one. However, he does have one of his better players benched so that he'll be rested for the next night's "money game." Suddenly a situation arrises where, should the benched player be put in the game, he would be a certain asset and could possibly aid the Reds in winning that particular ballgame. Nope. You keep that bench warm. I need you tomorrow.
THAT is a circumstance effected by gambling. THAT is wrong. And even if THAT never actually happened, the mere fact of that scenerio even existing compromises the game.
In six of Rose's eight managerial years the Reds finished second, but never first. This was likely God's doing, punishment for shaming baseball.
I'll let you decide how serious I am.
And look at me! I didn't even mention the 1919 White Sox.
As for whether or not Pete deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, I'm still on the fence about this one. Based on playing ability alone he's a shoo-in. BUT he broke a very serious baseball rule. Players aren't banned from baseball for no good reason.
"But what he did as a manager shouldn't effect what he did as a player. It's the baseball PLAYER's Hall of Fame, not the baseball MANAGER's Hall of Fame."
&!#$.
1) There ARE managers in the Hall of Fame, so stop saying that.
2) Pete Rose was a player/manager for three seasons. Managing, gambling, and still a player.
I'm glad I'm not the decision-maker here, the one who decides whether or not to open those doors to immortality. I know in the hearts and minds of many he's already there, but it sure helps to have that shiney plaque hung up on the wall. He was a hero, and I'm still mad at him for shirking that and bastardizing the game for money.
It's too early in the morning for me to get riled up.
It's the kids these days... they're uninformed, amoral, and stupid.
I'm not a sixty-year-old porch coot, but if I look it it's because I've been driven there.
