home

Integrity

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Off Topic
Posted on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 01:48:51 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

We all know that the political news is not the place to find it. And our illusions about sports has long been shattered. But the NBA/corrupt ref scandal is off the charts. One of my favorite writers, Bill Simmons, explores the scandal and what it means for the NBA. My only blog hook on this story is the FBI is investigating. But I think it is quite a story.

< Poll: Hillary's Lead Widens, Dems Believe She Can Win | Gitmo: Pass the Pistachios, More Harry Potter Please >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Integrity | 23 comments (23 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Captain Renault: (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by desertswine on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 02:59:30 PM EST
    I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!

    [a croupier hands Renault a pile of money]

    Croupier: Your winnings, sir.

    The NBA is so screwed..... (none / 0) (#1)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 02:43:06 PM EST
    It will take 20 years to recover from this one....if at all.

    I'd hate to be an NBA ref next season...the hecklers are gonna have a field day.

    Ohhh, you should've known (none / 0) (#3)
    by scribe on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 03:38:26 PM EST
    something was up, because the bookies surely did.  

    The papers have reported today that, as things went along with the alleged scheme involving the ref (and, it appears, the NBA has been looking at this ref through investigators for 18 months or so), the betting lines involving the games he worked moved often and fast.  

    I once had this now-former "client" who was the kind of guy who wouldn't take your bet but who could point you to the right guy who would.  "Looking for trouble/fun?  Ask AnonymousGuy - he knows where you can find it...."  He explained to me how moving betting lines - particularly fast-moving lines - mean someone with a lot of money (or a bunch of friends with money) has bet big, enough to move the line.  That takes a lot of money, dumped quickly and, that kind of money only gets dumped in if the big bettors have gotten their hands on information.  moreover, as is true in a lot of markets, there tends to be a bit of herd behavior involved, too.  The knowledge that the games can be fixed is just too "good" to not pass along - so it gets passed along.

    From what I've read, it seems the way to profit from his scam was to bet the over.  He called more fouls, more regularly, than all except four or five refs in the league - and a lot of his fouls were (in the eyes of fans, at least) dubious.  More fouls means more free throws and more stoppages, which means more points.  Therefore, the over.  Calling more fouls is always discretionary - there are a lot of plays in any basketball game which could be called as fouls, and aren't.  

    After this, is there anyone still doubting the wisdom of banning Pete Rose for life, and keeping him out of the Hall of Fame?

    Pete Rose.... (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 03:52:33 PM EST
    belongs in the hall of fame...he's got the most career hits!

    Pete Rose bet on games, but as far as I know there is no proof or allegations that he tried to fix games.  Totally different scenario than the NBA ref.

    Now a hypothetical...if the NBA ref also happened to be the NBA's all time leader in rebounds, I'd argue he still belongs in the hall of fame for what he did on the court as a player, and should be banned from officiating or working with the league in the future, while keeping his plaque in the hall.  Otherwise you cheapen the hall of fame....like the baseball hall of fame is cheapened by the abscence of Rose.

    I can't stand Pete Rose, he clocked my mom's favorite player Bud Harrelson with a sucker punch in the 1969 NLCS...but he belongs in the hall, for the sake of the hall.

    Parent

    No, Rose does not belong in the Hall (none / 0) (#9)
    by scribe on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 04:52:47 PM EST
    First, there's a Rule posted prominently in every MLB clubhouse - betting on games is forbidden under penalty of a lifetime ban.  It matters not whether you let the bet affect your performance vis-a-vis the game or not.  It's a categorical ban.  He broke it. End of discussion.

    Second, Rose's behavior in betting (assuming there's some truth in his multifaceted statements on the issues) on games was as bad, if not worse, than this ref's behavior.  Rose would bet, or not bet, on his own team based upon his view on how the team would do that night.  (The most recent iteration of his claims are that he bet on his team to win every night.  This followed years of denying he'd bet at all.)
    If he bet the same amount every night, he was a stupid bettor.  If he bet every night but varied the amount - he told the bookies his opinion on the chances of his team winning.  If bet to win, but didn't bet every night - he told the bookies his opinion on the chances of his team winning.  In any event, the information his betting conveyed to the bookies was easily as valuable to them as the wagers.  It isn't fixing games, but it's close enough.

    Third, to be admitted to the Hall of Fame, it's now in the hands of the Veterans' Committee - i.e., all living members of the Hall of Fame.  They will have nothing to do with him, to the point of not even putting his name on the ballot.  Their opinion is the only one which matters any more, and it's pretty clear where they come down.

    Parent

    You can ban him for life.... (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 05:22:13 PM EST
    and put him in the hall, for the sake of the hall, the fans, and the game.  The league can ban Rose from ever entering the hall, or attending any games or league functions, and still put his plaque on the wall where it belongs.  

    I agree he won't get any love from the Veterans Committee...reagrdless of the gambling, he wasn't well liked as a player.  I think part of the reason is his special brand of hustle made other players look bad by comparison.

    Whatever info bookies gathered from Rose's betting patterns is of no concern to the league or the game on the field...its only a concern to gamblers and bookies.

     

    Parent

    kdog (none / 0) (#5)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 04:03:31 PM EST
      I agree with you that Rose belongs in the Hall based on what he accomplished as a player (it's "of fame" not "of virtue") and  be banned from participating in any fashion.

      I think the point he is making though is not that Rose fixed games but that betting on one's game or even just associating with illegal bookies creates a perception  so negative about the possibility the games are fixed  it can damage the game for everyone. So,  the penalties need to be draconian as a deterrent. In other words, this is so bad we do it to Pete Rose, don't even think we won't do it to you.

      Now, my thinking is that most people tempted to do it have no chance of being in the HOF in any event so that aspect of his punishment means nothing to-- what 99% of the players?

     

    Yeah.... (none / 0) (#10)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 05:06:47 PM EST
    the "we won't let you in the hall" deterrent is meaningless to the vast majority.  Which is why I find the Rose HOF snub so frustrating...it's not gonna stop a journeyman manager with no shot at the hall from betting on a game....it just punishes the HOF.  I've been to Cooperstown many times, and I can't walk through the hall without thinking of Rose...when I should be focusing on all the baseball greats.

    This case is 100X worse than Rose...no competitor in a team sport has the capability to fix a game like a ref.  If I was a Suns fan I'd be livid right now...this clown might have cost them a shot at last year's title.


    Parent

    Rose and the Ref (none / 0) (#16)
    by Peaches on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:04:01 AM EST
    To the casual fan scouring over baseball statistics, it is and always will be obvious that Pete Rose was one of the best players of all-time. The fact that he has a lifetime ban from baseball and is not allowed in the hall-of-fame cannot erase his statistics and his past glories as a player.

    However, The Hall of Fame in Cooperstown is a shrine to baseball. It represents the game and what it means to fans as well as America. Pete Rose bet on games as a manager and this fact erodes the integrity of the game. He is rightfully banned from the hall on these grounds alone. Baseball is bigger than anyone player and any fan should recognize this. That is what makes the game so great. Each game is unique and a story all on its own. Betting on games destroys the mystique that accompanies the game.

    Whether Rose will be a martyr for fans should not be a concern. Fans should feel sorry for him and should acknowledge that one of the greatest, if not the greatest, players to play the game was banned from the game for the remainder of his life and excluded from the hall-of-fame. They should know that this is a travesty. But, they should also realize how serious the allegations of betting on games are by players and the potential consequences of doing so and be thankful for those who have placed the game's integrity over the the exploits of the greatest hitter of all-time.

    What the NBA is going to do to restore the integrity of Basketball, I have no idea. It would have been better if it was Michale Jordan who was the recipient of charges of gambling on games. Stern could ban Michael Jordan and exclude him from the hall. What can he do about a Ref? Hell, if I know. The NBA is damned and I am saddened for it.

    Parent

    Those are all good points, (none / 0) (#18)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:48:59 AM EST
      and I think reasonable minds can differ on the HOF exclusion. But, what do you think about kdog's idea that he be in but his plaque prominently mention that he was banned for gambling as part of the story? Can't a case be made that is the most "honest" reporting of history-- that even one of the greats violated the trust. Does excluding Rose, and Jackson for that matter, protect the integrity of the game any more than including them with a recounting of their sins as well as accomplishments?

      Maybe having Cooperstown confront the whole story of the game would make it more authentic? (Perhaps a steroids/ HGH display too?)

    Parent

    Authenticity.... (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:02:17 AM EST
    great word choice Decon.  A HOF without Rose isn't authentic.

     

    Parent

    On a plaque, (none / 0) (#20)
    by Peaches on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:08:43 AM EST
    I think it is much more effective to exclude him than placing a plaque with an explanation. Everyone knows the story and people visiting the Hall will always be able to ask about the Guy with all those hits and how come he is not in the Hall for years and years to come.

    I am unsure of the Steroid issue. Personally, I think it is all right to let the selection process decide who should be let in and McGwires showing last year tells me that if steroids is associated with a name, it will be difficult for a player to get in. If Bonds isn't selected to be in the Hall, I think this is a bigger travesty than Rose being excluded, however. Gambling is a much bigger violation for a player and the steroid issue was as much the fault of Baseball for not being on top of what players were doing and getting caught up in the whole hysteria of the Home run balls coming off of the strike, that it just looked the other way and refused to deal with it.

    Mcgwire, Sosa, and Bonds are Hall of Fame players and their exclusion will need to be dealt with if they are never selected into the hall of fame, They should have a place reserved for them in the Hall with a plaque and explanation as Kdog's suggestion for Rose. But Steroids is trivial compared to gambling.

    As much as the the Hall of Fame needs to be authentic it also needs to be a shrine that protects a Mythology about what Baseball means to America. Cheating and betting are not allowed in this mythology. Pete Rose exclusion from the Hall is also a part of this mythology and will always help keep Baseball in its rightful place as America's favorite pastime. Even the debate on whether or not he should be in the Hall of fame and if a plaque should be placed with qualifications helps keep the integrity in place, and I hope the debate is always ongoing and never resolved - so his exclusion form the Hall is permanent.

    Parent

    Pete Rose is in the Hall of Fame in a fashion. (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 04:06:09 PM EST
    The bound volume constituting the investigation called for by A. Bartlett Giamatti is in the Hall. Rose bet on games while he was a player-manager of the Reds. No, he shouldn't be in the Hall.

    Call me crazy.... (none / 0) (#11)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 05:10:38 PM EST
    but I believe him when he says he only bet on the Reds.  Rose was the ultimate competitor...anybody who takes out a catcher in a meaningless All-Star game isn't the type to throw a game.  Thats my gut feeling anyways....

    A HOF without the all-time hit king is a joke...I'm sorry.  MLB should put his plaque in there...and after his stats it can state he was banned for life for gambling.  Everybody wins.

    Parent

    Although (none / 0) (#15)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 07:23:03 AM EST
      it is difficult to belive someone who has so incessantly lied about so many things, I do believe him on that, and I believe he never took any action to make the Reds more likely to lose a particular game during that game.

      But, did he bet on the Reds EVERY game? If not is it possible that he made a decision during a game on which he did bet (maybe bring in a certain pitcher) to increase the likelihood of winning which would make it less likely the team would win the following game and then he would not bet on that following game because he knew that pitcher needed rest? With his limited intellect and ethical appreciation it is possible that he did allow his betting to affect games without even realizing he was doing it.

      Even if it didn't happen the mere possibility it could happen is critical to the perception held of the game.  Then you have the problem that even though  Rose never got to the point where he could be coerced to fix games  he put himself in a position where some people belive it could happen and who can say it would not have eventually happened if he hadn't been caught?

      What he did is indefensible and to me the only question is what is the appropriate punishment. I believe the lifetime ban is appropriate. I just don't think the ban needs to include exclusion from the HOF.

       Another thing to consider is that shoeless Joe Jackson is MORE famous (and probably considered a more sympathetic figure) today because he's not in the HOF than he would be if he had been elected in the routine course of events. Is baseball making Rose a martyr and elevating his lasting fame with its stance?

    Parent

    Shoeless Joe.... (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:39:40 AM EST
    as great as he was, isn't on a par with Rose.  Baseball greatness, for better or worse, is mainly measured by stats...and Rose holds one of baseball's most prestigous records.  Any serious baseball fan will know who the all time hit king is...so I don't see the ban as making him more memorable or famous.  His play took care of that.

    We are in agreement I think...the ban is right, the exclusion from the hall is wrong.

    Parent

    well Jackson (none / 0) (#21)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:20:30 AM EST
    lost the opportunity to compile greater career stats because he got banned during his playing career unlike Rose.

      Arguing about who is/was "better" is one of the great appeals of sport but my point really had nothing to do with relative "greatness." Everyone seems to agree that Jackson would have made the Hall if not banned. He was one of the greats of his era.

       Here is one guy's list I found  of the greatest by position of his era:

    C - Chief Meyers
    1B - Ed Konetchy
    2B - Eddie Collins
    3B - Home Run Baker
    SS - Joe Tinker -
    OF - Tris Speaker
    OF - Ty Cobb -
    OF - Shoeless Joe Jackson
    SP - Walter Johnson -  
    SP - Grover Cleveland Alexander
    SP - Jack Coombs  
    SP - Eddie Cicotte  
    SP - Chief Bender
    SP - Eppa Rixey  
    SP - Dutch Leonard

      Cobb (also a reprobate) is probably the most famous today but Jackson might be second (only Johnson  Tinker  and  Alexander fom that list are even arguably as well known-- and Tinker is really mostly  known as the SS in "Tinker to Evers to Chance" and Alexander might be less known without his given names.

      If Jackson was in the HOF would he be any more widely known than say Tris Speaker?

      100 years from now will Rose eclipse Hank Aaron and Willie Mays in fame? Maybe, (and you won't argue he was better than them) even if his career hits record has been surpassed several times. He doesn't have the advantage of "say it ain't so, Joe" becoming a common expression

    Parent

    Ah..the dead ball era (none / 0) (#22)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:33:57 AM EST
    fascinating period. Pitchers "loaded up" not only with spit, but coffee grounds, pomade, Three-In-One Oil and just about anything else they could secret out to the mound. The pitchers mound was higher, the strike zone smaller; outfielders hid extra balls in the outfield high grass..

    Considering all the aforementioned factors, Jackson's lifetime BA in the .350s is a pretty compelling stat.

    Parent

    correction.. (none / 0) (#23)
    by jondee on Wed Jul 25, 2007 at 12:37:13 PM EST
    I meant to say the strike zone was larger. And the inside of the plate included any part of the batters body below the neck.

    Parent
    I've seen so many (none / 0) (#7)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 04:18:13 PM EST
    unexplained foldings by key players on teams in cruical games and highly questionable calls in cruical situations -- the Pittsburg-Seattle Superbowl comes immediatly to mind -- that it's difficult for me to believe this kind of thing hasnt been going on for a long time.

    The sports media is generally so conservative and afraid of rocking the boat that things have to get almost completely out of hand before any of them start waxing indignant. Carmen Basilio told me once that every fighter in the country knew Sonny Liston went in the tank against Ali (then Clay), but all any the sports writers could talk about was the phantom punch "that was so quick and destructive" that no one saw it.

    Rose may deserve to go in the Hall, but he never will any more than the even more deserving Joe Jackson will. For the reasons stated by Decon.

    Maybe this explains why the Padres (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 04:44:53 PM EST
    can't get anyone in with 1 out and runners on base?

    Parent
    Some good may come of this.... (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 05:14:11 PM EST
    less ticky-tack foul calls next season.

    Not to go terribly off topic ... (none / 0) (#24)
    by Sailor on Wed Jul 25, 2007 at 01:20:07 PM EST
    ... but Voltaire was french and the brits had been at war with them (off and on) for several decades.

    Further, executing Byng was political cover for a failed policy. Byng was given a huge mandate and a small fleet to go against a large fleet. Since the ruling powers had never been at sea or fought a battle they looked for a scapegoat.

    Sound familiar?

    The only silver lining was that Byng was shot rather than run up the halyard as was the original sentence. Small comfort indeed.

    No criticism is implied of DA's post. The fact that he was even aware of this stain on British honour is impressive. The fact that similar, even if less deadly, acts occur today is less so.

    Integrity | 23 comments (23 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment