EVIL~! alkeiper

Because there is an explicit rule preventing players from gambling, while no rule exists prohibiting teams from accepting advertising from casinos. Is this not right? Possibly, but it in no way justifies Rose's actions.

Yes it does.

He hit alot in non-clutch situations, and that batting average says nothing about his fielding, which was reputed to have been poor the entire Series. Yeah, that pesky Joe, always ruining our plans to throw the championship. So how does that explain Jackson agreeing to throw the Series? Even if he reigned on the agreement, he still made an agreement.

A few points here about Pete Rose..... 1. Betting on games does have an effect on baseball. While betting on a game may not directly effect the outcome of a game, it hurts the game's integrity. Integrity is VITAL to the health of any sport. How does gambling effect the game's integrity? It doesn't matter if Rose actually threw the games. If it is known that a player, manager, or whoever bets on a game, then the fan immediately begins to worry, "Am I seeing a legitimate athletic contest?" 2. It doesn't matter that Rose didn't throw a game. There's a rule in place that says no gambling. I don't know if Rose bet on baseball or not, but if he did, then he broke a written rule. First off, throwing the World Series and gambling are two different offenses. Throwing the series is far worse than betting on regular season games, and you can't really compare Jackson with Rose. With that in mind, I see some falsehoods in your statement. It is NOT painfully obvious that Jackson was not involved in the scandal. Look at the facts. 1. Joe Jackson sat in on the meeting where the means of throwing the World Series were discussed, along with seven other players. 2. Jackson received $5,000 on the pretense of throwing the World Series. It doesn't matter at this point whether he did anything to actually throw the Series. HE RECEIVED MONEY FROM GAMBLERS. 3. Jackson did hit the Series' only home run. In game 8, with the White Sox already down by five runs. I've never heard anything even suggest that Jackson wasn't even involved in the scandal.

Oh it counts. I'm just explaining why announcers refer to it that way. Its like how postseason stats don't count in career totals.

Yes. It's considered 11 times when you don't count the World Series one.

Some more triple play trivia for ya. EVERY triple play in history has involved the fielder catching a line drive, and then stepping on second and tagging the runner from first. Seven have occured via the shortstop. Three are by second basemen, and two are first basemen. No other positions have featured an unassisted triple play.

That's how Furcal's happened. The hit and run was on. Just check out ESPNNews. They'll show it over and over.

Great game. That's why I love baseball.

Some skill and ALL luck.....considering all the errors Fucal has had this year. All luck, but not because of Furcal's fielding percentage. Honestly I don't know how good Furcal is of a fielder, but errors aren't an accurate measure of ability. Unless we're talking about Butch Hobson.

Long way off yet. But according to baseball-reference.com, the most similar player to Pujols at 22 was....Joe Dimaggio.

HOME RUN!! Pujols extends his streak to 24 games.

Smoltz vs. Pujols coming up, with Pujols' hitting streak on the line.

Here's the complete list, courtesy of Total Baseball Neal Ball Bill Wambsganss George Burns Ernie Padgett Glenn Wright Jimmy Cooney Johnny Neun Ron Hansen Mickey Morandini John Valentin Randy Velarde Rafael Furcal Interesting to note that 6 of the 11 happened in the '20s. Wambsganss' occured in a World Series game. Only one occured between 1927 and 1968.

The last one was pulled by Randy Velarde, I believe while he was with the A's.

Tonight on ESPN's Sunday Night Baseball, Rafael Furcal pulled an unassisted triple play in the 5th inning against the Cardinals. Its only the 11th time in MLB history that an unassisted triple play has been accomplished, and the first time in Braves history.

I always thought Andre winning the battle royal was considered one of those great moments.

Mick Foley's insane bumps during the Hell in the Cell match with the Undertaker.