Barry and Pete

[BengalszoneBilly]

Even though I hardly agree with this writers claim that Rose was worse for baseball than the current Bonds scandal, I thought the article was interesting. I'd also like to add that I wish neither player had done these things, and baseball could still mean to me what it used to. Sad to say I doubt it will ever be like it was for me as a kid, laying in bed at night with a transistor radio pressed to my ear listening to Marty and Joe bring me the on field action of The Big Red Machine. Those were the days...

Bonds and Rose, baseball's modern villains

Dayn Perry

FOXSports.com

In baseball, villains are as much a part of the game's history as home runs and strikeouts.

Over the years, you've had superstars who also doubled as racists (Ty Cobb, Cap Anson), game-fixers (Hal Chase, the 1919 White Sox), misanthropes (take your pick), drunks and womanizers (again, take your pick). In the modern era, though, two villains tower over all the rest: Barry Bonds, the all-time home run king, and Pete Rose, the all-time hit king.

Bonds, of course, raised hackles early in his career for his bravado and surliness with fans and media. Later, however, he was reviled for his (alleged!) use of performance-enhancing drugs. Now that he's been indicted on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, Bonds angst is at record levels.

As for Rose, he's banned from baseball for life for gambling on the game. For years, Rose lied about his betting practices, and he chose to make a belated and half-hearted apology only when it helped him sell books. Throw in tax evasion and other misdeeds, and you've got an unsavory character for the ages.

So the question at this point becomes this: who's the bigger villain, Bonds or Rose? Needless to say, this merits further exploration ...

Who hurt the game the most?

This, of course, is the heart of the matter. Bonds sullied the game by (allegedly!) using several flavors of steroids, HGH, insulin and even a fertility drug in pursuit of Hank Aaron's record. However, he was part of a larger malaise. Once the Mitchell report comes down the pike, we'll be able to grasp the dimensions of that malaise. What is certain is that Bonds is one of many players — perhaps even part of a majority — to use performance-enhancing drugs in recent years (allegedly!). In some senses, it's shameful that, for instance, Mark McGwire isn't similarly ridiculed. After all, he toppled a record that's just as cherished, and he almost certainly did it by cheating. However, it's Bonds who's subjected to the righteous fury. It's also shameful that Roger Clemens, who was named in the Jason Grimsley indictment and displayed a physical transformation and late-career performance spike to rival those of Bonds, has been subjected to precious little speculation. A race issue? It's hard to argue otherwise.

In any event, what Bonds did damaged baseball and was unethical in the extreme. He's a cheater, plain and simple. Still, how much has baseball really been harmed? MLB is smashing attendance records, and their revenues are approaching NFL levels. Right or wrong, the issue seems to matter more to the media than it does to rank-and-file fans. The game has survived worse (the Black Sox Scandal, The Great Depression, World War II conscription and the 1994 labor stoppage, for instance), and ultimately the "Steroid Era" may be as far from the consciousness of fans as the drug scandals of 1970s.

As for Rose, in baseball terms he committed a capital offense by gambling on games he managed. Even worse, he bet on his own team, the Cincinnati Reds. On another level, what's galling is that Rose lied to the public and to the caretakers of baseball for 15 years. Only when he had a financial stake in the truth — i.e., peddling his book, My Prison Without Bars — did he come clean.

In every team's clubhouse, there's a sign cautioning, in so many words, that betting on baseball is grounds for permanent banishment. In contrast, what Bonds did wasn't against baseball's rules until 2002. Illegal and immoral, yes, but against the rules of the game, no. As well, gambling on the game strikes more at the heart of competitive integrity than steroid use does. It's not a great leap to go from the use of "greenies" in the 60s to the use of cocaine in the 70s to the use of anabolic steroids in the current era. Certainly, steroids confer more of an advantage than its predecessors, but there is a lineage. In contrast, when someone like Rose bets on baseball it's possible that he's more concerned with winning the bet than winning the game. That's the gravest sin of all. Sure, Rose denied ever betting against his own team, but his credibility on that front leaves much to be desired.

The other, and perhaps most important distinction is that Rose was a gambling scandal unto himself, whereas Bonds, as mentioned, was only one of perhaps hundreds. Think of this another way: if there had been a gambling ring that comprised, say, 25 percent of players in the league, then MLB would likely cease to exist, at least in its current, recognizable form. As bad the steroids scourge has been, it's not going to have anything close to that kind of impact. In that sense, what Rose did was much worse.

Who was the better teammate/clubhouse guy?

On the field, Bonds was a better player than Rose by several orders of magnitude, but, laying aside their respective crimes against the game, what about in the dugout and in the clubhouse? Rose has always been lauded as a galvanizing teammate and someone whose drive to win rubbed off on others. Bonds, meanwhile, doesn't have that reputation. He wasn't able to get along with Jeff Kent in San Francisco (then again, who does get along with Jeff Kent?), and he's often been portrayed as having a diva's sense of entitlement in the clubhouse. Just ask the Barcalounger.

In any event, Bonds seems to be the bigger villain on this front.

Non-baseball sins

Rose famously spent time in the pokey for tax evasion, and he also had to cough up more than $350,000 in back taxes. That's pretty serious stuff. He also dressed up as the San Diego Chicken at WrestleMania. That's also pretty serious stuff. He also posed for this picture, which is arguably the most serious of his crimes.

Meanwhile, if the allegations of Kimberly Bell are to be believed, then Bonds was a philanderer. Of course, among professional athletes that's hardly a point of distinction. It's also been reported that the feds were investigating Bonds for tax evasion, but he wasn't indicted for that. Also, Bonds' worst extant photo is substantially less offensive than Rose's. Overall, we'll call Rose the bigger villain on this front.

The verdict

Rose is narrowly more villainous than Bonds when it comes to crimes against the game and off-the-field malfeasances. Bonds, meanwhile, is worse when it comes to relationships with teammates. Overall, we'll give the close nod to Rose over Bonds as the biggest contemporary villain in baseball. Rose will evoke more sympathy with fans because he was the hustlin', dirty-uniformed regular guy who got by on moxie and drive rather than talent. (This, of course, is patent nonsense — anyone who plays a quarter century in the majors has loads upon loads of natural ability.) In the objective sense, however, he's the greater of two evils.

Still, take heart baseball fans: at least they're not O.J.

[Riagogogoindanati]

I dunno...........the way I look at it, Pete bet on baseball games. At first I thought it was on OTHER games going on in the league. Then come to find out he was betting on games he was managing for the Reds at the time. I guess if he was betting on the Reds to lose it could've been an even bigger scandal. but, he was betting on the Reds to win. It is harder to win and much easier to lose.

As for Bonds....Come on he wreaks of 'roids. He lied under oath (potentially). I wasn't a huge fan of Bill Clinton either, but when he lied under oath...that pi$$ed me off. When you are under a legal obligation and take an oath to tell the truth, that is a sacred thing to me. Knowingly using a banned substance to enhance yourself, your game, your skill, your pocket book, is just not right and if found guilty he should serve time. So we'll see. And if he is found guilty, forget putting his HR ball with an asterik in the museum. he should be banned from baseball and not even give him the time of day to retire. Banned, period. No bats, no balls, no jersey in the museum.

[BengalszoneBilly]

I dunno...........the way I look at it, Pete bet on baseball games. At first I thought it was on OTHER games going on in the league. Then come to find out he was betting on games he was managing for the Reds at the time. I guess if he was betting on the Reds to lose it could've been an even bigger scandal. but, he was betting on the Reds to win. It is harder to win and much easier to lose.

As for Bonds....Come on he wreaks of 'roids. He lied under oath (potentially). I wasn't a huge fan of Bill Clinton either, but when he lied under oath...that pi$$ed me off. When you are under a legal obligation and take an oath to tell the truth, that is a sacred thing to me. Knowingly using a banned substance to enhance yourself, your game, your skill, your pocket book, is just not right and if found guilty he should serve time. So we'll see. And if he is found guilty, forget putting his HR ball with an asterik in the museum. he should be banned from baseball and not even give him the time of day to retire. Banned, period. No bats, no balls, no jersey in the museum.

True. Pete did bet on games, and the records show it was ONLY to win. The games "holy" record books were not impacted whatsoever. The same simply cannot be said for Bonds, or any other player who were juiced up IMHO. After all of these investigations are made public, and the offenses by these players are proven to be as they appear now, I agree with your assessment. Their punishments should clearly be in line with what was handed out to Charlie Hustle.

[ArmyBengal]

I would have to say that whomever wrote this article is an idiot. To even suggest that what Rose did had a bigger negative impact on baseball is rediculous. What Pete did was as a manager and had absolutely no impact during his time as a player. Nothing Pete did had a negative impact on the game based on his time as a player. While I cannot condone what he did as a manager, I still do not think for one minute that you can banish him and ignore his accomplishment as a player for his stupidity as a manager. I think the whole thing is just one huge load of BULLSH*T !!! If Bonds makes it to the Hall of Fame, I will never watch another baseball game as long as I live. What a f*cking crock of sh*t this is !!!

I agree Billy, I miss those days as well. My father took me to the World Series to see the Big Red Machine when I was 5 and 6 years old. Things will NEVER be the same !!!

WHODEY !!!

[Riagogogoindanati]

Excellent point AB.

What Pete did as a manager has no bearing on what he accomplished as a player. Period.

The 2 situations are not comparable by any means whatsoever.

[redsfan2]

Even though I hardly agree with this writers claim that Rose was worse for baseball than the current Bonds scandal, I thought the article was interesting. I'd also like to add that I wish neither player had done these things, and baseball could still mean to me what it used to. Sad to say I doubt it will ever be like it was for me as a kid, laying in bed at night with a transistor radio pressed to my ear listening to Marty and Joe bring me the on field action of The Big Red Machine. Those were the days...

Bonds and Rose, baseball's modern villains

Dayn Perry

FOXSports.com

In baseball, villains are as much a part of the game's history as home runs and strikeouts.

Over the years, you've had superstars who also doubled as racists (Ty Cobb, Cap Anson), game-fixers (Hal Chase, the 1919 White Sox), misanthropes (take your pick), drunks and womanizers (again, take your pick). In the modern era, though, two villains tower over all the rest: Barry Bonds, the all-time home run king, and Pete Rose, the all-time hit king.

Bonds, of course, raised hackles early in his career for his bravado and surliness with fans and media. Later, however, he was reviled for his (alleged!) use of performance-enhancing drugs. Now that he's been indicted on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, Bonds angst is at record levels.

As for Rose, he's banned from baseball for life for gambling on the game. For years, Rose lied about his betting practices, and he chose to make a belated and half-hearted apology only when it helped him sell books. Throw in tax evasion and other misdeeds, and you've got an unsavory character for the ages.

So the question at this point becomes this: who's the bigger villain, Bonds or Rose? Needless to say, this merits further exploration ...

Who hurt the game the most?

This, of course, is the heart of the matter. Bonds sullied the game by (allegedly!) using several flavors of steroids, HGH, insulin and even a fertility drug in pursuit of Hank Aaron's record. However, he was part of a larger malaise. Once the Mitchell report comes down the pike, we'll be able to grasp the dimensions of that malaise. What is certain is that Bonds is one of many players — perhaps even part of a majority — to use performance-enhancing drugs in recent years (allegedly!). In some senses, it's shameful that, for instance, Mark McGwire isn't similarly ridiculed. After all, he toppled a record that's just as cherished, and he almost certainly did it by cheating. However, it's Bonds who's subjected to the righteous fury. It's also shameful that Roger Clemens, who was named in the Jason Grimsley indictment and displayed a physical transformation and late-career performance spike to rival those of Bonds, has been subjected to precious little speculation. A race issue? It's hard to argue otherwise.

In any event, what Bonds did damaged baseball and was unethical in the extreme. He's a cheater, plain and simple. Still, how much has baseball really been harmed? MLB is smashing attendance records, and their revenues are approaching NFL levels. Right or wrong, the issue seems to matter more to the media than it does to rank-and-file fans. The game has survived worse (the Black Sox Scandal, The Great Depression, World War II conscription and the 1994 labor stoppage, for instance), and ultimately the "Steroid Era" may be as far from the consciousness of fans as the drug scandals of 1970s.

As for Rose, in baseball terms he committed a capital offense by gambling on games he managed. Even worse, he bet on his own team, the Cincinnati Reds. On another level, what's galling is that Rose lied to the public and to the caretakers of baseball for 15 years. Only when he had a financial stake in the truth — i.e., peddling his book, My Prison Without Bars — did he come clean.

In every team's clubhouse, there's a sign cautioning, in so many words, that betting on baseball is grounds for permanent banishment. In contrast, what Bonds did wasn't against baseball's rules until 2002. Illegal and immoral, yes, but against the rules of the game, no. As well, gambling on the game strikes more at the heart of competitive integrity than steroid use does. It's not a great leap to go from the use of "greenies" in the 60s to the use of cocaine in the 70s to the use of anabolic steroids in the current era. Certainly, steroids confer more of an advantage than its predecessors, but there is a lineage. In contrast, when someone like Rose bets on baseball it's possible that he's more concerned with winning the bet than winning the game. That's the gravest sin of all. Sure, Rose denied ever betting against his own team, but his credibility on that front leaves much to be desired.

The other, and perhaps most important distinction is that Rose was a gambling scandal unto himself, whereas Bonds, as mentioned, was only one of perhaps hundreds. Think of this another way: if there had been a gambling ring that comprised, say, 25 percent of players in the league, then MLB would likely cease to exist, at least in its current, recognizable form. As bad the steroids scourge has been, it's not going to have anything close to that kind of impact. In that sense, what Rose did was much worse.

Who was the better teammate/clubhouse guy?

On the field, Bonds was a better player than Rose by several orders of magnitude, but, laying aside their respective crimes against the game, what about in the dugout and in the clubhouse? Rose has always been lauded as a galvanizing teammate and someone whose drive to win rubbed off on others. Bonds, meanwhile, doesn't have that reputation. He wasn't able to get along with Jeff Kent in San Francisco (then again, who does get along with Jeff Kent?), and he's often been portrayed as having a diva's sense of entitlement in the clubhouse. Just ask the Barcalounger.

In any event, Bonds seems to be the bigger villain on this front.

Non-baseball sins

Rose famously spent time in the pokey for tax evasion, and he also had to cough up more than $350,000 in back taxes. That's pretty serious stuff. He also dressed up as the San Diego Chicken at WrestleMania. That's also pretty serious stuff. He also posed for this picture, which is arguably the most serious of his crimes.

Meanwhile, if the allegations of Kimberly Bell are to be believed, then Bonds was a philanderer. Of course, among professional athletes that's hardly a point of distinction. It's also been reported that the feds were investigating Bonds for tax evasion, but he wasn't indicted for that. Also, Bonds' worst extant photo is substantially less offensive than Rose's. Overall, we'll call Rose the bigger villain on this front.

The verdict

Rose is narrowly more villainous than Bonds when it comes to crimes against the game and off-the-field malfeasances. Bonds, meanwhile, is worse when it comes to relationships with teammates. Overall, we'll give the close nod to Rose over Bonds as the biggest contemporary villain in baseball. Rose will evoke more sympathy with fans because he was the hustlin', dirty-uniformed regular guy who got by on moxie and drive rather than talent. (This, of course, is patent nonsense — anyone who plays a quarter century in the majors has loads upon loads of natural ability.) In the objective sense, however, he's the greater of two evils.

Still, take heart baseball fans: at least they're not O.J.

First I saw this article, so I'm kinda late chiming in. Not totally amazed that this came from Fox ... Cincinnati always seems to take some shots from these guys .... sooooooo it figures that a guy who is using steroids gets compared not to other guys ( contemporaries ) also juicing ... but to Cincinnatis' Pete Rose. The nonsense references aren't worth wasting time on , but he does make other observations that aren't framed properly. #1 ... completely different indescretions. Bonds used performance enhancing drugs to accomplish a feat that he wouldn't have been able to attain otherwise. Roses' integrity was in question for a list of reasons, but the one thing that everyone ( including this guy ) agrees on is that his on field acccomplishments were the result of hustle and a competetive attitude that drove him relentlessly. Petes records are untarnished.

A valid point could have been made that while Pete did only bet on the Reds to win ... it still made a difference because if he didn't bet on them .... it made a difference on the odds because everyone figured something was up. Not betting on them to win was seen as the same as betting on them to lose.

Who did baseball the most harm ????? Neither. That would be baseball ... the union and the owners not getting a deal done and alienating almost all of their fans. It took McGwire and Sosa to bring it back ...just like it took Ruth a generation before.

First thing this guy ought ot do is wait to see how the Bonds issue shakes out. Then deal with it on its own merit ... and lastly ........... Leave Pete out of it. Jeez get over it already.

[redsbengalsbucks]

On the field, Bonds was a better player than Rose by several orders of magnitude

I have a serious problem with this statement, Rose was and is one of the best players to ever play in the Major Leagues. He could play multiple positions at an All-Star level. Bonds in recent years has been a liability on defense and used steriods to get some of his power which in turned lead to more walks and a better average than he would have had if not on ROIDS!!

I think the writer must have forgotten the fact that Bonds would not have accomplished most of his offensive records without the HGH and ROIDS.

[BengalszoneBilly]

On the field, Bonds was a better player than Rose by several orders of magnitude

I have a serious problem with this statement, Rose was and is one of the best players to ever play in the Major Leagues. He could play multiple positions at an All-Star level. Bonds in recent years has been a liability on defense and used steriods to get some of his power which in turned lead to more walks and a better average than he would have had if not on ROIDS!!

I think the writer must have forgotten the fact that Bonds would not have accomplished most of his offensive records without the HGH and ROIDS.

This was Peter Edward Rose at what would be the end of the good times for him, and his career in baseball.

Who would have ever guessed at the time. Surely not I.

[ArmyBengal]

I still think the comparisons to what Pete did and what some in the "Roid Era" have done are not fair at all. To hear people make the statement that most of these guys will still probably get into the Hall sickens me. How Pete hasn't been allowed in the Hall is beyond me...

WHODEY !!!

[Kirkendall]

Well, I think that this is an apples and oranges debate. One crime never lessons another. Furthermore, Rose recorded his guilt on 60 minutes and a book whereas Bonds remains vigilant on his innocence. Whether we believe that Bonds did anything or not, is irrelevant.

I do agree with Army though. The fact that some are starting to accept this as the steroid era, therefore giving HOF votes to the best steroid users (eerrr, players) during that era is fallacy. It's another example has Baseball either doesn't get it, or we're just too damned tired of figuring it out so they just do what they want. This includes scores of baseball writers that keep justifying BS.

[ArmyBengal]

Agree that one crime never lessons another and that Rose has admitted his guilt. My point to it is that the two situations in general are very different and the people trying to make comparisons are (in my opinion) trying to make for a good read. What Pete did was as a manager and what Barry and others have done was as players. Regardless of Pete's missteps as a manager, I still can't see why his accomplishments as a player continue to go unrecognized by the Hall of Fame. I think it's an outrage personally...

WHODEY !!!

[Kirkendall]

Agree that one crime never lessons another and that Rose has admitted his guilt. My point to it is that the two situations in general are very different and the people trying to make comparisons are (in my opinion) trying to make for a good read. What Pete did was as a manager and what Barry and others have done was as players. Regardless of Pete's missteps as a manager, I still can't see why his accomplishments as a player continue to go unrecognized by the Hall of Fame. I think it's an outrage personally...

WHODEY !!!

I agree with 100% of what you said. RE: Rose. But there really isn't that line drawn between what a player violates and what a manager does. It's across the board. Hell, I even agree and understand that philosophy.

Either way, Bonds is still an a**h***.

[ArmyBengal]

Yep, those lines are not present whatsoever, but my opinion (which counts for very little more than dogsh*t) is that they should be. I honestly believe that the two situations are completely different and the impact the actions of each had directly on the game are different as well. Oh well, this topic of conversation isn't going to die anytime soon and I will continue to beat the drum for Pete until he's in the Hall or I'm (gulp) well, the "D" word...

WHODEY !!!

[redsfan2]

We've had more than 1 of these " Pete " conversations in the past, and no one ever changes their position ...... me included I guess. Before Pete could even be considered for being inducted, he would have to first be reinstated. Seeing as how Pete accepted a lifetime ban as part of his deal, and then not only admitted to betting on baseball including his own team, but lying about it for 20 some odd years .... I just don't see that happening. Not in his lifetime anyway .. when that could lead to him possibly profitting from it.

While it is true that Pete is not in the Hall, he is well represented in the museum in which the hall is situated. Its not the same as being enshrined, but its a pretty safe ... " bet " that he won't fade into obscurity either.

Either way ... it can truly be said that Pete has made his own place in baseball history.