baseball scandals

owners' collusion during the free-agent era is a contender

also the major leagues before 1947

Predictable, but steroids. I had really negative feelings about the '94 strike, primarily because it killed Williams' and Griffey's chance at the home run record. If I'd known at the time that the steroid era was well under way, I likely wouldn't have cared as much. (Agree that baseball's worst-ever scandal was the color line.)

true

Flood's complete lack of support from the game's frontline stars in '70--in retrospect, that would also rank near the top.

As shameful as segregation and the Curt Flood situation were, they weren't scandals and don't really belong on this thread (they were scandalous, but not scandals, if you know what I mean).

Belle/Grimsley "batgate" was totally insignificant IMO -- it's not a real scandal if there aren't any long term repercussions. I'd rank stuff like the Pine Tar Game and Alomar/Hirschbeck way ahead of Belle/Grimsley.

Historically speaking, the Black Sox scandal transformed the game like no other scandal before or since, but it didn't happen during our lifetimes so I'm sure most of us were affected more personally by something else. I'm pretty sure the 1994 strike will win this poll going away (as it should), unless some of you guys decide to ruin it by voting for the steroid scandal.

something else (tell)

voted for matt cain beating up a retarded kid in high school

New scandal: I ruined this poll by voting for the steroid scandal.

Nook Logan HGH

xpost I'm changing my vote to "something else" = "the clemenza ruining the ILB scandal poll scandal"

I think NoTime is probably right about segregation and Flood not being scandals in the strictest sense, but I think you could say the same of the '94 strike. As appalling as that whole episode was, it was just an extreme manifestation of the standard labor-negotiation cycle, and a lot of observers saw it coming from a mile away. Even the cancellation of the World Series was just the logical endpoint of an acrimony that had been building for years.

One thing that does belong is Selig's tie All-Star Game. It came as a complete surprise (a true scandal just happens without warning), angered and/or perplexed just about everybody, and it also had long-term repercussions.

Did the Pine Tar Game have any actual repercussions? I can't think of any, beyond guaranteeing that that clip gets played on any countdown of Sports Meltdowns. (I was watching that game on TV...incredible.) Alomar/Hirschbeck, yes, insofar as I think it altered the course of a HOF career.

also, steroids: I don't care

We're working up a definition of a true scandal:

1) without warning
2) long-term repercussions
3) Morbius must care.

But he's a grumpy old cynic!

Not to turn this into yet another steroids thread, but one thing has always fascinated me. Some people care about the issue, some don't. Common sense tells me that the people who care should be impatient or angry at the people who profess not to--i.e., can't you see that this was a terrible thing, how can you not care? In actual fact, I continually find that it's the people who don't care who get impatient or angry at the people who do. (A general observation--I'm not referring to Morbius.)

I know what you mean. There's a woman on my Rockies forum who is absolutely obsessed with steroids not actually helping hitters hit, and has found one study that seems to largely corroborate her beliefs. And so if you try and have ANY discussion with her about PEDs use in baseball she gets onto this high horse and absolutely refuses to listen to anything until the drug-hataz have got bored and gone away. It's the weirdest thing.

Especially in San Francisco. I'm basing this largely on a friend's blog, but I think he's probably representative of a lot of people there; a deep-seated resentment that Bonds' home-run records were greeted with a massive shrug.

The sheer gall of folk in SF accusing other players/teams of cheating is what riles me! (viz humidor etc)

You raise some good points about the '94 strike, but predictable or not, it still constituted a sequence of events that was a huge deal *at the time*. Nobody really cared about Curt Flood or segregation while they were happening, instead, people had more or less gotten used to the status quo and weren't trying to change anything.

When I talked about "repercussions", I didn't mean that the scandal had to result in major rule changes or something like that. It's enough that people remember it years and years later as a particularly notorious event, like with Alomar/Hirschbeck.

The ASG tie is a really good suggestion (which DID lead to a major rule change), although I personally don't care about it. That's one of the only "controversial" Selig decisions that I'll defend. A tie in an exhibition game that's nothing more than a spectacle for the fans is harmless compares to THIS TIME IT COUNTS and possibly affecting the outcome of the World Series.

And IMHO, the only people on their high horse about steroids are the groupthinkers who believe they're part of some common sense revolution about how steroids affected the game, despite there not being a single piece of evidence that can conclusively establish how steroids affects hitting or pitching, and anyone who dares to point that out or question their unshakable logic is shouted down. But hey, let's not make this into a steroids thread.

We definitely disagree there.

Is it true that nobody really cared about segregation in '47? I don't know. Within the game, maybe, but I always thought that external pressure had been building for at least a few years. Flood, definitely--there probably wasn't a person in the world who cared who wasn't already sitting at his legal table.

People definitely cared about segregation by '47 but over most of the previous 60 or so years, not really. But more importantly, not many people were actively trying to do anything about it.

Marge Schott was pretty controversial in her day.

"1) without warning"

Technically this doesn't apply to any of the strikes does it?

owners' collusion during the free-agent era is a contender

also the major leagues before 1947

― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Monday, November 22, 2010 11:15 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

both much more important than the rest of this crap

color barrier

Schott's a good overall choice; not sure if I can remember one specific scandal. (Wasn't there an n-word story?) Steinbrenner could be on the list for at least two or three specific scandals. Ditto Charlie O.--like his attempted fire sale in '75. (I can't remember exactly how that unfolded; the fire sale may have come after he had some proposed trades blocked by Kuhn.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marge_Schott#1990s

I'd also say the shenanigans that led to Loria selling the Expos and owning the Marlins were more awful than anything Rose or the Black Sox did.

gah just about to write that. minority owners getting scammed by Loria/Selig takes the cake.

I don't think you communists understand that ppl who run a private enterprise can do whatever they like

Other gambling-related scandals: suspensions for Mantle/Mays (silly) and Denny McLain.

Collusion is probably the biggest scandal to me in the sense that it wholly shifted the business of the game and wasn't just a tabloid issue. But no talk of Sammy Sosa's corked bat? Jeez.

Clemenza, you're a big Clemens groupie right?

If you mean my handle, no...I'm as on the fence right now with Clemens as I am with Bonds.

Hahahhahaha, you call that "on the fence"? I'd hate to see what your bad side is like then.

I'm not totally sure what that means. Roger Clemens was obviously a phenomenal pitcher; I just wish there wasn't the baggage of that other thing. Most people on here do not believe that that other thing matters.

I'd also say the shenanigans that led to Loria selling the Expos and owning the Marlins were more awful than anything Rose or the Black Sox did.

― Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 23 November 2010 15:09 (1 hour ago)

Pretty hard to top this.

(I'd still vote for the '94 strike and WS cancellation though)

Actually,

Black Sox > '94 strike > Loria >>>>>>>>>>> Rose

Black Sox > '94 strike > Loria >>>>>>>>>>> Rose >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AS Game froofraw

it's not really a 'scandal', but the hostage-taking attitude of baseball and the dumbass response of local cities re: new stadiums pisses me off more than any of these. the economic benefits of public financing almost never materialize for anyone besides the owners. fucking build a new stadium yourself if you 'need' it to be profitable.

Mookie OTM.

What about the Pirates making tens on millions of dollars a year profit without ever trying to create a winning team?

The Black Sox scandal is objectively the worst scandal, I guess, but it's hard to get too worked up about it because it happened forever ago and the real villains in the piece (the gangsters who fixed the thing in the first place) basically got away scot free.

Baseball Scandals:

Baseball (inclusive) 1850-2010

also would argue that the Black Sox had the most good to come out of it, one way or another? Or the perceived emergence of legitimacy of professional sport?

xxxp Still think the Marlins are worse than the Pirates even if they do occasionally try to put together winning teams. The schtick the Marlins have pulled with Miami-Dade county to get the much needed publicly funded stadium all the while pulling in many millions in profit is gross.

I'm fine w/ Rose being considered small beer as long as he never ever gets in the HOF

(but I will probably stop caring once Steinbush gets in)

Sex scandals--how could we forget sex scandals! Kekich/Peterson wife-swap, Boggs/Margo, Garvey and his paternity suits, Dave Stewart and Lucille (can't believe I remembered the name without looking it up...), etc.

You have strong feelings about these?

Kekich/Peterson is a pretty amazing story

Mostly amazing cuz Fritz Peterson and Suzanne Kekich are still married!

You have strong feelings about these?

In terms of this poll, "strong feelings" are indeed part of the question, but in general, I don't see strong feelings as being a precondition of a good scandal. Scandals are often just eye-candy: fascinating to follow, with or without strong feelings. As PTT says, Kekich/Peterson is an amazing story (ditto the others I mentioned). I mean, who would have ever guessed that the Dodgers' Andy Hardy first baseman was secretly John Holmes?

"I mean, who would have ever guessed that the Dodgers' Andy Hardy first baseman was secretly John Holmes?"

Most people who watched Cheers?

"I mean, who would have ever guessed that the Dodgers' Andy Hardy first baseman was secretly John Holmes?"

I don't even know what this sentence means!

You're saying Sam = Steve Garvey? C'mon--Sam Malone was pretty blatant about his womanizing. Garvey was God and country and Dodger Blue. Don't see a parallel there, unless your point is that one should assume any professional baseball player is a womanizer. Which seems a little drastic.

Stewart Lucille "scandal" was more amusing than really scandalous. He wasn't a big enough deal at the time to garner much attention.

I assume that all male professional athletes are womanizers.

Except for the gay ones that is.

god i wish i had remembered to include matt cain pounding a special needs kid

cleon jones getting shit and eventually released by the mets because he was caught sleeping in a van with a white woman(!) who was not his wife was the defining scandal of my youth and a fucking disgrace

U.S. Investors Seek High Returns in Bets on Dominican Baseball Prospects

I don't think you communists understand that ppl who run a private enterprise can do whatever they like

― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius)

The 81 and 94 strikes totally angered me and screwed over Reds fans twice. The Reds had the best record in baseball in 81 and didn't make the playoffs because of the screwy 1st half, 2nd half scheme they had in place for playoff positioning. It was made worse that the scummy Dodgers won it all.

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

i'd like to hear from the strike voters

i voted white sox... poor john cusack...

I'm most surprised by Rose at #1. As I wrote above, I don't think a good scandal has to involve strong feelings, and Rose was (and is) definitely a good scandal. But I wonder if the five people who voted for it actually answered the question literally, i.e. it elicits strong feelings in them? Rose hardly even registered with me in that department. Or is it just that Rose himself elicits strong feelings? That would make more sense to me.

owners' collusion during the free-agent era is a contender

also the major leagues before 1947

both of these urinate on the other options from a great height

jajajaja

i voted rose, and i voted literally, i.e. that his scandal evokes emotion for me. a lot of this comes from the fact that he is the first baseball player i ever knew about, and the first that i really liked. i can still remember watching a film strip in elementary school (that for some reason showed a picture of him) and saying "that's pete rose!"

sorry for the cliche, but not really: he just always seemed to put his heart into the game. always ran the bases as if his life depended on the speed, etc. i can not believe that he bet against the reds, but i do believe he bet ON them, which is questionable but imo not something to be forever shamed and punished for, and that is why i feel strongly about it. being banned from baseball, yes, but let him in the hall.

i mean, let me be clear: it is more than questionable. it is clearly wrong to bet on a game you are involved in in any way, it can affect your actions w/r/t that game. but compared to betting against your own team, it's just such a whole other level.

i voted for "this time it counts", what a load of sheiBe.

B = capital Beta fwiw

i don't know if this is a controversial or hated opinion on ILB, i'm new here. xpost

"this time it counts" isnt really a scandal though, is it?

Interesting about Rose. I guess he's fallen so far, it's easy to forget that at one time he was viewed by many to embody everything good about the game...unless you were Ray Fosse or Bud Harrelson...but I can definitely see where he'd be a kid favourite. I felt that way about Bench.

yeah. he's truly one of my favorites.

Can someone recommend a good article that covers the collusion scandal in depth?

I thought maybe James took the issue up, but now I realize it was the Rose scandal; he wrote this really long, meticulous defense of Rose (whom James otherwise didn't have much use for) in whichever annual it was in '90 or '91. I think he may have changed his position since he wrote it.

i find Rose's last season as manager/1B sticking himself into late inning games to goose his hit total more offensive then betting on his guys.

why!

Baseball doesn't think much of dirty Italians anyway and neither do the fans.

riiiight

Haven't read this yet:

http://mlb.si.com/2013/07/24/an-oral-history-of-the-pine-tar-game/?sct=uk_t11_a4

I'm almost positive I was watching that game on TV, yet 7/24/83 was a Sunday, and it was an afternoon start--where would I have gotten a Yankees/Royals game on a Sunday afternoon? I'm not even sure if there were Sunday night broadcasts then. Baffling.

You've gotta watch that clip--don't know that I've ever seen an athlete more apoplectic than Brett. Priceless: it's Gaylord Perry who sneaks the bat off the field! (Finishing his career with the Royals in '83...)

SABR marks the centennial with some myth-busting

https://sabr.org/eight-myths-out

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/effectively-wild-episode-1353-the-show-goes-on/