Pete Rose Should be in the Hall of Fame!

     25 years ago, Pete Rose was banned from all baseball activities by the MLB, and the sure fire first-ballot Hall of Famer was sent to the permanently ineligible list, never to officially be enshrined in Cooperstown.  His crime?  Betting on Cincinnati Reds games while managing the Reds, a clear violation of the rules of the MLB,   Recently, due largely in part to the 25th anniversary of his ban, many have spoken out claiming Rose's suspension is unfair.  As you can probably tell from the title of this article, I'm one of them.  Pete Rose himself has applied for reinstatent several times and has always been rejected.  Here's why Pete Rose should definitely be a Hall of Famer.

     First of all, for those who don't know who Pete Rose is, the extremely condensed version is Pete "Charlie Hustle" Rose played from 1963-1986 for the Reds, Phillies, and Expos. He was an extremely versatile player who was a switch hitter and could play most positions on defense.  He is most known for being the MLB's all-time hits leader with 4,256.

     I feel like the argument for Rose's inclusion in the Hall of Fame has two major parts: the first is by showing just how impressive Rose's career was, and the other is defending his sports gambling.  First off, let's take a look at just a few of Charlie Hustle's career achievements, because believe me when I say there are many.

     First off,  he played for 24 seasons, which is absolutely incredible.  To be one of the best in the world in anything for that long is ridiculous.  Rose has played in more MLB games (3,562) than anyone ever has, and maybe ever will.

     In addition, he sustained his performance throughout his career, making 17 all-star game appearances, including one when he was 45 years old, which is nearly impossible.  However, the craziest part of Rose's all-star game record is that he did it at five separate positions!  This man could play anywhere on the field and be the best of the best.

     Over his career Rose won three World Series rings and one World Series MVP, which fulfills the "they're great and all but did they ever win" part of the checklist, which separates the great from the greatest in the eyes of many (not me but that's besides the point).  

     He was also the National League Rookie of the Year in 1963, MVP in 1973, won three batting titles, and had two Golden Glove winning seasons.  Rose had a career .303 batting average, something most players would be thrilled to achieve for just one season.  To top it off, the Reds organization had so much faith in Rose that he was even a player manager for his last three seasons, something only a select few players in all of sports can say they have done.

     Typically someone who has received any of the honors I have listed is considered to be one of the best players in the game, but Rose was just at another level throughout his career.  Based on his career alone, Pete Rose's spot in Cooperstown is unquestionable.  However, he did explicitly break an MLB rule.  So, does the punishment fit the crime?

     Again, you should be able to figure out that I don't think it does.  First off, I don't believe sports betting should be illegal in the first place.  In fact, my research paper for English last year, our biggest project of the year, and the subsequent speech based on my research, were on the legalization of sports betting, and an edited version of that paper may find its way on the blog at some point.  So clearly I'm siding with Pete Rose.  But why?

      Well, primarily my thought is simply that his career outweighs his betting.  But additionally, let's take a look specifically on the bets he made.  He bet on every game he managed, and betted on his team, the Reds, every time.  He had so much faith in his team that he bet money on them.  If I'm a player on the Reds, that motivates me and shows that my coach really believes in what we're doing.  

     I also find it important that he bet on every game, not only when his team played one of the cellar dwellers of the MLB or when his ace pitcher was on the mound.  There was no discrimination of any kind in his bets.

     Also, the main reason the MLB has this rule in the first place is to prevent a repeat of the disastrous 1919 World Series game fixing scandal, where eight members of the White Sox (dubbed the Black Sox due to their criminal acts) intentionally threw the World Series for money from gamblers.  Coincidentally, the series was played against the Reds.

     The main point to be taken here is that Rose didn't throw any games, therefore not harming the integrity of the game in any way, despite what the MLB says.  

     Additionally, I'd like to take one of my main points supporting sports betting, one that recently NBA Comissioner Adam Silver and Mark Cuban have acknowledged.  Major sports leagues seem to have no issues whatsoever with fantasy sports, played by millions around the world (myself included).  In many of these leagues there is a money prize the winner receives, therefore making it betting on sports.  It is well known that many professional athletes play fantasy sports, even those involving the leagues they play in.  So, what's stopping Peyton Manning from throwing to the receivers on his fantasy team, or Rob Gronkowski from "accidentally" dropping a pass if his fantasy opponent has him and the Patriots are well ahead?  Sports leagues are hypocritical allowing fantasy sports and not sports betting.

     Now I'd like to stop what nearly turned into a slightly off-topic rant on pro-sports betting, and end my argument here.  In conclusion, I believe for a number of reasons, involving both Pete Rose's playing career and the nature of his bets, that Rose should be in the Hall of Fame.  I hope one day Major League Baseball understands and rightfully ends Rose's ban.  I'd like to end by mentioning a poll done on ESPN.com in August for the 25th anniversary of Rose's ban, asking whether or not Rose's ban should be reversed.  81% of the roughly 500,000 responses ruled in favor of Rose.  The people have spoken.

Connor

      

Wins Aren't a Good Stat for Evaluating Pitchers

     The most well-known statistic in baseball for pitchers is the win-loss record.  It's not hard to see why.  The stat shows how many times a team wins or loses a game with that pitcher being on the mound.  On ESPN or any other sports programming network, it's the first stat used when previewing the pitchers of an upcoming baseball game, usually listed before a pitcher's ERA (earned run average).  Any casual observer to the game would typically assume that this stat would be the best indicator of how good a pitcher is, similarly to how a record is used to show how good any team is.  However, the stat is misleading, and should be noted, but not taken as the and all be all of stats when determining how good a pitcher is.

     The reasoning behind it isn't that difficult to understand.  A player wins a game if their team isn't winning when they begin pitching, their team is winning when they stop pitching, and then the team goes on to hold the lead and win the game.  The issue with this is that while the pitcher can do his best to allow as little runs as possible, he has no control over how the opposing pitcher performs, especially in the AL which uses the designated hitter, or DH.  So for example, let's say both pitchers play the full game.  One allows two runs, a great outing.  However, the other pitcher only allows one. Despite having a great game, the first pitcher takes a loss.  Despite how good a pitcher might be, if he's on a team that doesn't score, or is up against a good pitcher, or just gets unlucky, he just doesn't always come up with a record that suits his skill as a pitcher.   

     That was just an example.  However, similar situations take place all the time in baseball.  Here are just a few real life examples.  For people who aren't familiar with baseball, a pitcher's ERA is the number of earned runs he allows for every nine innings he pitches.  The average is a little over four, and an elite pitcher has an ERA of under three.

     First off is Jeff Samardzija.  In his time with the Cubs this season before being traded to the A's, he went 2-7.  Ouch.  The casual observer would write him off as a bad pitcher who should be begging for a job.  But then look at his ERA.  It was 2.83, or what I would call elite.    In Samardzija's first eight starts, he had an 0-3 record and a 1.62 ERA.  However, the Cubs had only given him 1.88 runs of run support per game, and that had left him winless.  

     Next is the case of Wily Peralta, a Brewers pitcher.  I actually saw this on SportsCenter a few days back and it's part of what inspired me to write this.  Peralta went 4-5 in April and May, with an ERA of 2.73.  However, since then he's gone 11-2, with only a 3.80 ERA, over a full point worse.  Why?  In April and May he received an average of 2.6 runs of support per game, where since he's received 6.1 runs per game.  He had nothing to do with that, but it's making his record appear like he's a star.

     However, the best example of why wins are deceiving comes from today, when David Price threw a one-hitter, allowed no earned runs, and lost.  How is that possible?  Well, a batter reached first on an error, and then went all the way home to score off the only hit that Price allowed, so the run wasn't earned.  The Rays lost 1-0, and since Price was pitching when the Rays' run was scored, he gets a loss, despite throwing a one-hitter.

     So now hopefully having established how inconsistent records can be, now the question becomes what is the best stat for evaluating pitchers.  Some people like stats like strikeouts or strikeouts over walks.  I disagree.  While I admit that throwing a high percentage of strikes is essential for good pitchers, it really doesn't make much difference how a pitcher gets his outs.  Therefore if a pitcher throws a strikeout for every out, but also has an ERA of 7.00, he isn't a good pitcher, no matter how many strikeouts he has.

     If you want to know what some actual MLB pitchers think is the best stat for evaluating pitchers, you should read this article as I found it to be pretty interesting.  http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/players-view-the-best-stat-to-evaluate-pitchers/.  One thing I noticed is how 1/4 of the players asked answered by saying innings pitched.  This intrigues me.  I agree that a pitcher's ability to pitch deep into a game is important, as it keeps the bullpen rested and allows pitchers to really assert themselves.  However, I wouldn't go so far as to call it the most important stat.      

     Now by this point it might seem obvious to you that I like ERA.  I do.  I think that it's pretty difficult to come up with a better stat for measuring how good a pitcher is than how many runs he allows.  However, there might be one, and that's WHIP.  Again, for non-baseball people, this stands for walks + hits allowed per inning pitched.  This basically means that besides batters who are hit by a pitch, WHIP is the amount of batters who get on base per inning a pitcher pitches.  

     It's a tough decision as to which is better and they both have pros and cons.  ERA shows how many runs a pitcher allows, but doesn't show guys who are left on base (LOB).  WHIP is the opposite, showing all guys who reach base, but not a total of runs.  Either way, I say these are the best stats for pitchers, and are both much better than wins.

     Thanks for reading,

     Connor

$10,000,000 Lawsuit for Sleeping? (This guy's nuts)

     Back on April 12th the Yankees were playing the Red Sox.  Big rivalry, huh?  One of those games that regardless of how good or bad the teams are, is always great to watch just because of all the bad blood between the two teams.  It's one of the biggest rivalries in all of sports.  Well at least one fan didn't think so.  During the live broadcast of the game one of the cameras caught a less than enthusiastic fan sleeping during the fourth inning.  Here's a link if you haven't seen it.      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FDrcWTSczs
     This was funny and all while it happened, but the real joke is what happened a couple days ago.  This guy sued ESPN and MLB for not $1,000, $100,000, or $1,000,000, but $10,000,000 - ten million dollars!  And for what did he sue?  Because the announcers unleashed an "avalanche of disparaging words against him", which led to "substantial injury to his character and reputation" and "mental anguish."  Are you serious?
     I find so many things wrong with this that I don't really know where to start.  How about the fact that he waited three whole months to sue.  Why wait so long?  Did he expect everyone just to up and forget about it?
     Here's my personal biggest issue with what this guy did.  Before the lawsuit, everyone just makes a joke about how it was funny that a guy was sleeping.  No one could really tell who this guy was, just that he was sleeping Yankees guy.  But now, thanks to his dumb lawsuit, the whole world knows who this guy is.  In case you didn't know, he's 26 year old Andrew Rector.  Congrats, genius - now everyone will know who you are.
     Here's another point (and far from the last I've got).  Why, if you want to be out of the news, do you make such a ridiculous and unwarranted lawsuit?  He sued for being shown on TV, and now all he just did was put him all over the TV and the internet, now for an even worse reason than sleeping at a baseball game.
     Do I need to bring up how much money he sued for again?  Oh yeah, TEN MILLION.  Maybe a few of his friends made some jokes, but really?  He claims to be criticized and harassed everywhere he goes.  Now, three months later, we're supposed to believe his life is a living hell?  I wouldn't've thought it was even three days after the incident.  Why on Earth does this guy need so much money?  I can't really think of anything that could've happened that would warrant him suing for near that much money.
     Now on to the actual reasons he doesn't have a case.  First of all, the commentators made a few jokes, but no real foul language was used and there was no bad intentions.  Seriously, there really wasn't anything mean said on air, it was more shock from the announcers that a fan at a Yanks-Sox game could be sleeping through a game.  The announcers make more sense than Rector.  Who does sleep at a baseball game?  I know baseball can seem like a boring sport on TV, but it's not bad to watch in a stadium.  Just the fact that this guy could've slept through a homer is enough to make any baseball fan a little sick to his stomach.
     By the way, the real legal issue here is that when you buy a ticket you consent to potentially having your actions in captured on camera and potentially shown on TV.  That alone destroys any possible bits of an argument this guy has.
ESPN has released a statement saying there is no merit to any of the claims stated in the lawsuit which officially lists the defendant as Major League Baseball.
     I'm going to finish with a few more claims of what Proctor says the announcer called him. Apparently, he was described as not worthy to be a Yankees fan, a fat cow, a symbol of failure, and a confused individual that doesn't understand baseball or the Yanks-Sox rivalry. Try to find any of that in the video. Basically, this guy needs some serious help if he believes this one minute video is worthy of a ten million dollar lawsuit. It surprises me that his lawyer and mother both defend his side of this story. 

Thanks for reading,
Connor