Sports and the Mob

[quentin cassidy]

Did anyone else happen to catch the HBO RealSports with the former Mob boss who was involved in many gambling/game fixing scandals in the late'70's thru mid '80's? Here are some examples:

1) Some well-known Yankees got into some gambling debt in the late '70's, and paid it off by botching plays in the field, striking out, etc. The guy being interviewed wouldn't name names, but from the sound of it, he implied that at least one of Randolph, Dent, Chambliss, Reggie, Catfish, Guidry, Goose, Nettles, etc would've been involved. Wow. All the Yankee haters out there must be loving this.

2) Before the '87 NFL draft, a previously unknown agent (and member of the Mob) paid off 50-60 college seniors to sign him as their agent. One of them was an Iowa U. RB by the name of Ronnie Harmon. In the Jan '87 Rose Bowl, Harmon, who had fumbled once the entire season, fumbled FOUR times in the first half, and dropped an easy TD catch later in the game. My hometown team, Syracuse, played in the Sugar Bowl that year vs Auburn, and they tied on a last second FG by Auburn, ruining the undefeated Orangemen's slim chance at a national championship. I'm curious if this was also a fix. Seems like someone could make quite a bit of money by betting on a tie in a bowl game.

3) Don King and the Rev. Al Sharpton were involved in coke dealings with the Mob folks, many fights were fixed, fighters were forced to fight when they were injured. No surprise here really.

[Ben Kenobi]

A TV producer wants high ratings. He finds a guy who says he was a Mafia boss who fixed games, but doesn't say anything specific enough to get sued for libel.

Why should I, even as a card-carrying Yankee hater, believe him?

[Radioactive Man]

Even in the olympics (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/olympics/news/2002/07/31/skating_arrest_ap/).

[quentin cassidy]

The guy was a Mafia boss. They showed a NY Daily News front page that headlined that he was the highest person in the Mafia ever to quit.

They didn't show any specific Yankee 'highlights', but it seems it would be pretty easy to throw a baseball game discretely. Players strikeout and make errors all the time. MLB salaries back then weren't as outrageous as they are now, so it's not hard to imagine someone being in some serious gambling debt.

So you think those four fumbles were a fluke?

Al Sharpton was on the show and they showed him a videotape of him buying coke from a dealer, and he just ranted about how the FBI (who had no knowledge of the tape being delivered to HBO) is 'out to get him' and he was just going along with the dealer so he could get out of the conversation w/out being intimidated.

[Ben Kenobi]

I have no opinion on the fumbles.

I'm not necessarily saying that nothing happened. But why not name the players, unless you don't think you can win a lawsuit?

[toomuchtime]

If a player was named, then that player would probably sue someone. What kind of evidence would be available to prove that the guy did throw a game. If they're doing something illegal to pay off some illegal and embarrising gambling debt, chances are there isn't much evidence around to prove them guilty, except the word of the people involved. That is probably why they can't name players.

It may be obvious that something is going on in those situations, but you can't actually prove it in court.

[Pseudolus]

Al Sharpton was on the show and they showed him a videotape of him buying coke from a dealer

Untrue.

An agent posing as a dealer approached Sharpton and tried to pursuade him to facilitate a deal. Sharpton made vaguely positive but non-commital noises. No deal was done, and no coke was even at the scene. Sharpton now says that the reason he didn't give the "dealer" a flat no was because he was afraid of what would happen if he rebuffed a big-time drug lord, which is at least plausible.

(Did I just defend Al Sharpton? I feel like I need a shower.)

[quentin cassidy]

I don't care so much about a lawsuit or proving things in court, but a thorough investigation should be done, and if the same conclusions can be drawn as were drawn in the Pete Rose investigation, anyone involved should be subject to the same punishment Rose has faced. Too bad that'll never happen, because these are the Yankees.

[quentin cassidy]

Pseud - thanks for the clarification. One point to add: when they told Sharpton they had a tape they wanted to show him, at first he refused to watch it. Several hours later, he came back and watched it. It also seems plausible that it took him that long to come up with that 'I was just trying to get out of the room alive' excuse.

[Captain America]

Too bad that'll never happen, because these are the Yankees.
You're right. If this guy had said Tigers, the FBI and Selig's office would be all over it, with indictments and lifetime baseball bannings all around.

:crazy:

Get real.

[quentin cassidy]

Maybe you're right, given the current state of the public opinion of baseball with the strike and all, Selig would keep a lid on it right now no matter what team was involved.

[Captain America]

So, are you saying that if it was [not the Yankees] AND everything else in baseball was honky-dory then

the FBI and Selig's office would be all over it, with indictments and lifetime baseball bannings all around.


?

If so,

Get real.

If not, then please disregard.

[quentin cassidy]

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

So, are you saying that if (an)other player(s) are guilty of the same crimes as Pete Rose (or worse, as in his case I don't believe there was ever any evidence of him betting against his own team, whereas in this case, players are being accused of tanking games to pay off debt), then they don't deserve to be punished the same way he has been? The only other alternative it seems to me would be to lift Rose's lifetime ban, and put him back on the Hall of Fame ballot, which will never happen as long as Selig is commissioner(whether it should or not is another question).

If you don't think anyone else should be investigated/punished, and Rose's ban should be kept in place, then

Get real.

[Lee Mellon]

Pete Rose belongs on a strip mall, signing baseballs for obnoxious children. He was a cheat, a liar and a schmuck. No amount of baseball talent should obscure that.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Lifetime ban should remain.
Wait until he dies. That would be the proper thing to do. And even then, have him voted on like the rest. I think it would take three ballots. He might not even get the minimum to stay on the ballot in the first year.

[Quasi]

Lifetime ban should remain.
Wait until he dies. That would be the proper thing to do. And even then, have him voted on like the rest. I think it would take three ballots. He might not even get the minimum to stay on the ballot in the first year.

I agree the ban should remain, but I think he'll be voted in immediately.

I assume there were polls years ago about whether or not he should be voted in....what were the results?

[gloid]

I love Pete Rose talk. There is absolutely no question in my mind that Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame. Why?

1. Ty Cobb: He is in the Hall of Fame. Pete Rose broke his record. Ty Cobb was one of the worst human beings to ever play the game - from his racism to his violence to his vulgarity.

2. A-Rod: Who would disagree that A-Rod should make the HOF if he keeps up the way he is going now? No one. He is the most popular SS in the AL - and there are a lot to choose from - as shown by him being voted the starter in the All-Star game. He took $250 MILLION DOLLARS to play for a god-awful team in Texas. Is he not Greedy, does he care about winning? Is is all about the money with him? Not to single out A-Rod, but any player from this modern age is most likely filled with character flaws - just like Pete Rose.

3. All-Star games: The one repeating example as to what is different about the All-Star game is the highlight of Pete Rose running over that catcher. He gave it his all - all of the time. His nickname is Charlie Hustle.

4. Stats: He definitely has them. That is usually the reason why people get voted in right? You don't see guys like Lou Merloni getting called future hall of famers just because they are nice do you? There is no qualification that says you have to be nice AND be a good player.

5. Michael Jordan: He is celebrated as the greatest basketball player of all time. HE is also a degenrate gambler.

So he gambled on baseball. What is the big deal? Did he ever bet against his own team? Nope. We are in an age in baseball when the biggest stars are on 'roids, taking Andro, getting paid astronomically absurd amounts of FANS' money (Pete Rose took his from bookies...), and are going to strike to get more, and some of these same players are going to go to the hall of fame??? I say, let Pete in!!!!

[Ray Finkle]

The Hall of Fame should be based solely on what a player does on the field. It shouldn't take into consideration the type of person the player is. There's going to be players with terrible off the field behavior, even criminals, in the Hall.

The only exception to this is gambling. The Hall of Fame should show no leniency when it comes to gambling. The game of baseball can survive a lot of things, but fixed games can destroy it. If the fans think the games are fixed, baseball will be ruined.

Pete Rose may not have bet on his own team, but the fact that he was betting on baseball is enough to warrant a lifetime ban. Gambling by players, managers, or owners cannot be tolerated.

[quentin cassidy]

Ray,

How can it be construed that games are fixed if you're not betting against your own team? How would you 'fix' the games if you're not playing?

What if the only betting a player does is betting on his own team to win? What's wrong with that?

[Ben Kenobi]

Because when he gets behind, the gamblers will start leaning on him to fix games to pay off his debt.

[Pseudolus]

Here's another angle: A manager (which Rose was) has to think about the whole season (and future seasons), not just the one game he's bet the homestead on. Pitcher usage is probably the biggest issue here. Does he A) leave his rookie phenom for 140 pitches (and maximize the chances of winning this game) or B) take the kid out at 100 (to try to keep the kid healthy and valuable for years to come)?

(If you're a Cubs manager, the answer is obviously "A". Not necessarily because you're gambling, but just because you're an idiot (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/recap?gameId=220804116).)

[Captain America]

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

So, are you saying that if (an)other player(s) are guilty of the same crimes as Pete Rose (or worse, as in his case I don't believe there was ever any evidence of him betting against his own team, whereas in this case, players are being accused of tanking games to pay off debt), then they don't deserve to be punished the same way he has been? The only other alternative it seems to me would be to lift Rose's lifetime ban, and put him back on the Hall of Fame ballot, which will never happen as long as Selig is commissioner(whether it should or not is another question).


I never said a thing about Pete Rose or whether or not I believe these guys should be investigated. My bone of contention with you was that you said these guys are considered untouchable because they're Yankees. I think that's silly.

Get real.

Hey, that's my line!

[quentin cassidy]

CA - OK, sorry for the misinterpretation. It just seems to me that the league would stand to lose a lot more if it's most storied and most popular (revenue-wise) franchise were shown to be corrupt, as opposed to one of the small market teams.

Pseud - good point, i hadn't thought of that. btw - i think today's teams pay too much attention to pitch counts - look at what Randy Johnson did in the WS last year on virtually no rest. overreliance on pitch counts just adds to the public's perception of today's players as being rich, lazy, and not as tough as ballplayers 20-30 years ago (in the days of 4-man rotations, very few relievers, closers pitching 2-3 innings, etc). if you stay in tip-top shape and train your body to throw 120+ pitches every 4th day, you can do it (although i agree that asking a rookie who's not used to it to finish off a game just to 'see if he can' is pretty dumb).

[Captain America]

It just seems to me that the league would stand to lose a lot more if it's most storied and most popular (revenue-wise) franchise were shown to be corrupt, as opposed to one of the small market teams.


I agree.

I think there could be (more of) an argument made for conspiracy had the team in question been the Brewers.

I'm going to stay out of the pitch count conversation, 'cause I think you're about to get schooled.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Pitch count is important, but it's more about poor mechanics. And poor mechanics come from high pitch counts. Good mechanics come from strong legs. When your legs give out, it's time to leave the mound. Whether it's 90 pitches or 150 pitches.

As for Rose running through Fosse: Fosse was blocking the plate. Perhaps in an exhibition game, he shouldn't have been blocking the plate. But he was, since he was playing to win (or prevent the imminent loss). Also, it always looked to me that Pete lost his footing about two steps from the plate.

[Captain America]

Also, it always looked to me that Pete lost his footing about two steps from the plate.

Moi aussi.

[Pseudolus]

(grr. stupid software just timed out and ate my post.)

quentin - I agree that some stat-types make too much of pitch counts, even inventing things like "Pitcher Abuse Points". Trying to put a number on something so complicated and so little understood as pitcher injuries is to claim false precision. However, there are some things that I do know about pitch counts (or at least suspect very strongly):

1) The chance of an injury due to each pitch increases with the number of pitches already thrown. (That is, the 111th pitch is more dangerous than the 11th.)

2) This increase gets much sharper past a certain critical point, which may turn out to be at a different place for each pitcher, but is likely > 80 and < 110.

3) Young pitchers seem more susceptible to these injuries than veterans. (Are vets more mature and thus less likely to "overthrow" in a pressure situation? Are their arms more physically developed? Is it just a Darwinian thing - those who get to be "veterans" are the ones who weren't susceptible in the first place?)

4) Randy Johnson is a freak of nature. (And I mean that in the nicest possible way.)

So, while hard-and-fast pitchcount rules may not be needed, the general thinking behind them is sound. On boarderline cases, the pitchcount guys may be over-reacting. But in this case - tremendously high-potential kid, already thrown 120, relatively meaningless game - we're so far past the borderline that it's not funny.

(And the Cubbies were up 4-1 at that point! Did Kimm not have anyone in his pen he trusted to protect a 3-run lead for a single inning?!? I guess sitting next to Baylor that much must make you stupid.)

(Why does using an "angle bracket" in a post cause the text to show up doubled? This has happened to me before. Strange.) (grr. stupid software just timed out and ate my post.)

quentin - I agree that some stat-types make too much of pitch counts, even inventing things like "Pitcher Abuse Points". Trying to put a number on something so complicated and so little understood as pitcher injuries is to claim false precision. However, there are some things that I do know about pitch counts (or at least suspect very strongly):

1) The chance of an injury due to each pitch increases with the number of pitches already thrown. (That is, the 111th pitch is more dangerous than the 11th.)

2) This increase gets much sharper past a certain critical point, which may turn out to be at a different place for each pitcher, but is likely > 80 and < 110.

3) Young pitchers seem more susceptible to these injuries than veterans. (Are vets more mature and thus less likely to "overthrow" in a pressure situation? Are their arms more physically developed? Is it just a Darwinian thing - those who get to be "veterans" are the ones who weren't susceptible in the first place?)

4) Randy Johnson is a freak of nature. (And I mean that in the nicest possible way.)

So, while hard-and-fast pitchcount rules may not be needed, the general thinking behind them is sound. On boarderline cases, the pitchcount guys may be over-reacting. But in this case - tremendously high-potential kid, already thrown 120, relatively meaningless game - we're so far past the borderline that it's not funny.

(And the Cubbies were up 4-1 at that point! Did Kimm not have anyone in his pen he trusted to protect a 3-run lead for a single inning?!? I guess sitting next to Baylor that much must make you stupid.)

(Why does using an "angle bracket" in a post cause the text to show up doubled? This has happened to me before. Strange.)

[quentin cassidy]

I agree with you on all 4 points. My point is that someone being paid millions of dollars a year to pitch should do everything he can to learn proper mechanics, keep in shape in the off-season, eat a healthy diet, get enough rest (ie Maddux is a good example), etc, in an effort to raise his pitch count threshold from the 80-90 range to somewhere well over 100 (or whatever the limit of that pitchers potential maximum threshold is - which varies by pitcher of course).

[Ben Kenobi]

(And the Cubbies were up 4-1 at that point! Did Kimm not have anyone in his pen he trusted to protect a 3-run lead for a single inning?!? I guess sitting next to Baylor that much must make you stupid.)

Kimm came up from the triple-A affiliate, I think.

On this one point, and this one only, I'll defend Kimm's decision: No, there is nobody in the Cubs' pen who can be trusted with a lead.

[Captain America]

On this day in 1962, a pitcher for the Mets named Al Jackson completed a 15-inning 6-hitter, losing to the Phillies 3-1.

He threw 215 pitches.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Knuckleballer?

[Captain America]

I wondered the same.

BTW, Happy B'day to Earl Weaver!

[Pseudolus]

I haven't found a whole lot of stuff on Jackson, but nothing I have found has mentioned a knuckleballer. He was the Mets' bullpen coach for at least the 2000 season. It seems unlikely that a team with a staff of all non-knucklers would give that job to a knuckleball pitcher.

http://www.rndng3rd.com/mets/playrsgl/aljac.html

[Dr T Non-Fan]

I saw Charlie Hough go to the mound to yank a pitcher the other night.
I don't recall which team it was, but I'll bet there are aren't any knucklers on the team. It's a risky bet, since he's probably teaching the knuckleball to the players.

[Ben Kenobi]

Charlie is the Mets current pitching coach. Maybe they have a thing for ex-knucklers.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

I think that Nolan Ryan would be a good pitching coach.
Or at least a good pitchers' strength training coach.

"Come to the farm for Thanksgiving. I'll be done with ya before Spring Training."