Ranking Cheating in Baseball

What type of cheating angers you most as a fan?

  • Betting on your own team to win (Pete Rose)

    Votes: 96 33.1%
  • Pine tar on a Bat / Foreign Substance on baseball (numerous)

    Votes: 8 2.8%
  • Steroids (Barry Bonds, etc)

    Votes: 50 17.2%
  • Using a camera in the dugout to bang on a drum (Alex Cora, etc)

    Votes: 7 2.4%
  • Wearing a device that electronically notifies you of a pitch (Jose Altuve, etc)

    Votes: 129 44.5%

  • Total voters
    290

Red Averages

owes you $50
SoSH Member
Apr 20, 2003
9,055
With speculation about electronic buzzers now going on, I was curious how this is being viewed relative to historical cheating in MLB.
 

Murderer's Crow

Dragon Wangler 216
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
23,479
Garden City
1) Wearing a device that electronically notifies you of a pitch (Jose Altuve, etc)
2) Using a camera in the dugout to bang on a drum (Alex Cora, etc)
3) Pine tar on a Bat / Foreign Substance on baseball (numerous)
4) Steroids (Barry Bonds, etc)
5) Betting on your own team to win (Pete Rose)


Betting on another team to win would be top.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
1) Wearing a device that electronically notifies you of a pitch (Jose Altuve, etc)
2) Using a camera in the dugout to bang on a drum (Alex Cora, etc)
3) Pine tar on a Bat / Foreign Substance on baseball (numerous)
4) Steroids (Barry Bonds, etc)
5) Betting on your own team to win (Pete Rose)


Betting on another team to win would be top.
I see it exactly as you do.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,761
Pittsburgh, PA
Hasn't it been proven that Rose did not just "bet on his own team to win"? I thought his bookie was quoted later that he made all sorts of bets including on the Reds to lose.

And yes, I realize Giamatti specifically stopped the investigation with his settlement with Rose, but he had the bet book and everything.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,844
Hasn't it been proven that Rose did not just "bet on his own team to win"? I thought his bookie was quoted later that he made all sorts of bets including on the Reds to lose.

And yes, I realize Giamatti specifically stopped the investigation with his settlement with Rose, but he had the bet book and everything.
Dowd says he couldn't prove it but that he thinks it happened.
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
27,957
Saskatoon Canada
1. I voted for betting because Iam sick of the whitewashing of what Pete Rose did.
2. Rose did more than bet on his team to win. He was betting on every single MLB game or all the NL games. You may want to add with a mobbed up bookie, and confirmed talking baseball with the bookie. Fuck Pete Rose.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,844
George Brett. you can’t have it to high up the barrel but ive understood what advantage it gives the batter
It doesn't really give a specific advantage, but pine tar too far up the bat can then come into contact with balls, making them unplayable. In fact, it can give an advantage to a pitcher in that there's now a foreign substance on the ball.

These days, balls are replaced if it touches a bat, the ground, the air, etc. so that's likely not as big a concern.
 

ookami7m

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,657
Mobile, AL
I'm with others who say it's 1) throwing games and a large gap to everything else. Gambling is probably 2nd with the sign stealing stuff in the same realm as gunking up a ball/superballs in a bat in that it's one of those stupid cheats that everyone gets away with until they don't. And history should show us that players and teams will squeeze every marginal inch they can because stats + wins = money.

Steroids are slightly behind that because I'm in the full belief that there were more people on than off so it's a fairly level playing field honestly.
 

Beale13

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 2, 2006
395
It's worse to bet on your team to lose, for sure, but I think it's still a mortal sin to bet on your team to win. Every game should be managed to optimize the team's chances to win the championship, which is not the same thing as pulling out all the stops to win a single game. Maximizing your team's chances to win a game can easily conflict with maximizing your team's chances to win it all. I'm not sure I'd call either one cheating, though.

I still think steroids are the worst. It's the only one on the list that requires other players to compromise their health in order to keep up.
 

Hendu At The Wall

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2005
108
Woodstock, NY
Betting on another team to win would be top.
I don't understand having betting as the least offence if this is also true.

Betting on your own team to win can be as damaging to the integrity of the game, given that you are betting more or less (or nothing) on any given night. The pitching changes a manager makes are the most important in-game decisions a manager makes. The amount you've bet (or not bet) could easily influence those decisions. A manager would want to save his best pitchers for a game where the stakes are higher. Not to mention, lineup construction and injury management could have been seriously impacted.

Both situations lead to managing not to win. This is just as bad as managing to lose from a severity standpoint.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
Pine tar on a bat?
George Brett. you can’t have it to high up the barrel but ive understood what advantage it gives the batter
They put the rule in during the WWI era to save baseballs (getting pine tar on the ball made them harder to see as dusk came in the pre-stadium lighting era). The rule was let stand since pine tar on the ball would give the pitcher an advantage after someone got a big gob on it. But given the relatively unlimited supply of baseballs and how often they replace them, it's one of those rules largely without a purpose anymore.

EDIT: What DJinVA said
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
I still think steroids are the worst. It's the only one on the list that requires other players to compromise their health in order to keep up.
Players are constantly being required to compromise their health in order to keep up.

Taken in large doses, Toradol is incredibly toxic and can destroy your kidneys. Baseball players - especially pitchers - take it in doses far beyond recommended levels on a routine basis. Hell, Schilling used to post about it here back when he was a member.

The point is that if that's what bothers you about steroids, you should stop watching professional sports. (Especially football.)

Edit: after a quick check, I believe that Toradol is no longer used because of how dangerous it is. I'm sure teams are simply abusing another painkiller instead.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Betting on your own team to win, especially as manager, means you will utilize your team differently to win those games at the expense of the games you aren't betting on.

Use the closer a 3rd day in a row? Sure. Pinch hit the guy with a tweaked ankle in a tie game late? Go ahead.

Betting on games either way means you are throwing games.
 

Archer1979

shazowies
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
7,870
Right Here
I don't understand having betting as the least offence if this is also true.

Betting on your own team to win can be as damaging to the integrity of the game, given that you are betting more or less (or nothing) on any given night. The pitching changes a manager makes are the most important in-game decisions a manager makes. The amount you've bet (or not bet) could easily influence those decisions. A manager would want to save his best pitchers for a game where the stakes are higher. Not to mention, lineup construction and injury management could have been seriously impacted.

Both situations lead to managing not to win. This is just as bad as managing to lose from a severity standpoint.
The best explanation as to why I've heard that betting on your own team to win is also forbidden is that it sends a "message" to the bookies that you don't intend to throw the game.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
72,442
Cheating doesn't anger me as a fan (except things like Black Sox, which should be a choice here, and Donaghygate in the NBA) nearly as much as segregation. (Not allowing people to play based on race or ethnicity)
 

DavefromHopkinton

New Member
Jul 18, 2005
8
Cambridge
1) Wearing a device that electronically notifies you of a pitch (Jose Altuve, etc)
2) Using a camera in the dugout to bang on a drum (Alex Cora, etc)
3) Pine tar on a Bat / Foreign Substance on baseball (numerous)
4) Steroids (Barry Bonds, etc)
5) Betting on your own team to win (Pete Rose)


Betting on another team to win would be top.
If you bet on your team to win 2 of the 3 games in a series, are you not giving information to your bookie about the third game?
 

thehitcat

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 25, 2003
2,376
Windham, ME
It makes me crazy that people don't see betting on your own team to win as something as bad or worse than everything else on that list. He loaded his team up to win those games, burned bullpen arms, played guys who were nicked up. Forget tomorrow daddy's got money on today. Then tomorrow came and suddenly he was playing his 4th/5th OF, using his worst bullpen guy at a high leverage time because he didn't have anyone else, resting guys for the next time he bet. This is by far the worst and most destructive on this list.
 

Murderer's Crow

Dragon Wangler 216
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
23,479
Garden City
I don't understand having betting as the least offence if this is also true.

Betting on your own team to win can be as damaging to the integrity of the game, given that you are betting more or less (or nothing) on any given night. The pitching changes a manager makes are the most important in-game decisions a manager makes. The amount you've bet (or not bet) could easily influence those decisions. A manager would want to save his best pitchers for a game where the stakes are higher. Not to mention, lineup construction and injury management could have been seriously impacted.

Both situations lead to managing not to win. This is just as bad as managing to lose from a severity standpoint.
Let me amend.

A player betting on his own team to win doesn't bother me. What are they going to do, run faster? Swing harder?
A manager betting on his own team to win is different for the reasons you mentioned.
 

Red Averages

owes you $50
SoSH Member
Apr 20, 2003
9,055
For what it's worth, I did not like the Black Sox because that isn't cheating (to win) it's specifically trying to lose, which is clearly #1 that it wasn't worth including with the cheating to win category.

PS - I imagine the camera was quite damaged after being used to bang on a drum. That's what I get for failing to proofread.
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
11,483
Let me amend.

A player betting on his own team to win doesn't bother me. What are they going to do, run faster? Swing harder?
A manager betting on his own team to win is different for the reasons you mentioned.
The two issues are:

1. If you're a guy who bets regularly, then not betting sends a message. It says you know something the general field does not.
2. If you lose, you can end up in debt to gamblers. And that is not a state you want your ball players to be in. Only bad outcomes, no good ones. Ok, there is one neutral one, you have the cash and pay them back.
 

Murderer's Crow

Dragon Wangler 216
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
23,479
Garden City
The two issues are:

1. If you're a guy who bets regularly, then not betting sends a message. It says you know something the general field does not.
2. If you lose, you can end up in debt to gamblers. And that is not a state you want your ball players to be in. Only bad outcomes, no good ones. Ok, there is one neutral one, you have the cash and pay them back.
I agree. I still keep the ranking the way I had them because this feels less likely to impact the game than the others which have the potential to impact every play every game. Betting on your own team to win as a player has risk, but not nearly as much.

Definitely see your sides to it, though. More on the fence than before.
 

Wingack

Yankee Mod
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
34,363
In The Quivering Forest
Yep ... Yankee cheating is better than non-Yankee cheating
Dude, relax. I am not trying to defend the Yankees with my every post. I said steroids were the worst in the sixth post in this thread.

I thought it was relevant what an actual current MLB pitcher had to say on the matter. If you don't, just put me on ignore.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,018
Oregon
Dude, relax. I am not trying to defend the Yankees with my every post. I said steroids were the worst in the sixth post in this thread.

I thought it was relevant what an actual current MLB pitcher had to say on the matter. If you don't, just put me on ignore.
BS ... if you have to go as far as find a tweet from Alex Wood, you're definitely doing it on purpose
 

cournoyer

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2012
515
Enfield, Connecticut
I don't see how anything else could be worse than throwing games.

BTW, read Joe Posnaski's piece on Dutch Leonard, Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker, Smokey Joe Wood, and gambling
Thanks for linking that story, that was a fascinating read. I voted for steroids just because I think it's altered the game as we know it today. It's frustrating to look back at some of these terrific careers and have to put your own moral asterisk on it. That being said, I think throwing games would be the clear front runner, including if the reports that Rose bet against his Reds are true.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,018
Oregon
Let's not ruin this thread for everyone. I brought relevant information into this thread with the Alex Wood tweet.

I hope with your next post you will try to do the same.
I did that the first time you posted the Wood tweet
 

Awesome Fossum

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
3,896
Austin, TX
The two issues are:

1. If you're a guy who bets regularly, then not betting sends a message. It says you know something the general field does not.
2. If you lose, you can end up in debt to gamblers. And that is not a state you want your ball players to be in. Only bad outcomes, no good ones. Ok, there is one neutral one, you have the cash and pay them back.
#2 is why I would have gambling as the least forgivable. Otherwise, I'm not sure that I care about any of it in a vacuum. I want my teams to win and their rivals to lose.
 

Wingack

Yankee Mod
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
34,363
In The Quivering Forest
I did that the first time you posted the Wood tweet
Not exactly. You were making some kind of comment about my reasoning for posting the Wood tweet. Trying to stir things up.

Nobody, wants to read these posts between us. I'm done posting about it.

The Wood tweet has value. None of the rest of our back and forth does.
 

Beale13

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 2, 2006
395
Players are constantly being required to compromise their health in order to keep up.

Taken in large doses, Toradol is incredibly toxic and can destroy your kidneys. Baseball players - especially pitchers - take it in doses far beyond recommended levels on a routine basis. Hell, Schilling used to post about it here back when he was a member.

The point is that if that's what bothers you about steroids, you should stop watching professional sports. (Especially football.)

Edit: after a quick check, I believe that Toradol is no longer used because of how dangerous it is. I'm sure teams are simply abusing another painkiller instead.
The health compromises of football are inherent in the the actual play of the sport. The health compromises of steroid use are not necessary to the play of any sport. Steroid use is a voluntary decision by the player that we don’t allow because any sport can be played without it and its use by a few makes its use necessary for many of the rest.

I see the use of pain killers and other health-compromising tools to keep one on the field as qualitatively different. I even see the use of steroids or HGH for the sole reason of healing quicker as a few orders or magnitude less egregious than using steroids to enhance your performance. The latter entails a raising of the standard of successful performance to a level that’s difficult to reach without the use of health compromising substances. And to my mind that’s way worse than any form of stealing signs.
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
11,483
The health compromises of football are inherent in the the actual play of the sport. The health compromises of steroid use are not necessary to the play of any sport. Steroid use is a voluntary decision by the player that we don’t allow because any sport can be played without it and its use by a few makes its use necessary for many of the rest.

I see the use of pain killers and other health-compromising tools to keep one on the field as qualitatively different. I even see the use of steroids or HGH for the sole reason of healing quicker as a few orders or magnitude less egregious than using steroids to enhance your performance. The latter entails a raising of the standard of successful performance to a level that’s difficult to reach without the use of health compromising substances. And to my mind that’s way worse than any form of stealing signs.
The only reason to take steroids is to heal more quickly. You take them so you can workout harder, more often, and still recover and rebuild your muscles between workouts. So where is the line that you draw between healing and enhancing?