The discussion of Pete Rose's status in baseball is an old one (just ask Jim Gray). The trend to compare his crime of gambling on baseball to ostensibly more severe crimes is more recent. Joe Posnanski, for example, focuses on the insignificant punishments allotted to NFL players and staff involved in "Bountygate," which was essentially a socially acceptable version of assault and battery. (Bountygate was the scandal in which New Orleans Saints' players allegedly earned bonuses for inflicting injuries on opposing players that forced them to leave games). In contrast, Rose's crimes were harmless, in the sense that no person's physical safety was threatened, yet he remains excommunicated. A recent Sports Illustrated article provides an excerpt from Kostya Kennedy's new book, Pete Rose: An American Dilemma and compares Rose's crimes with the trendy topic of performance enhancing drug (PED) use. Kennedy notes that while neither Barry Bonds nor Roger Clemens--two players linked to PED use--were inducted to the Hall of Fame in their first year of eligibility, both, unlike Rose, had the luxury of being placed on the ballot.
Posnanski and Kennedy's points, questioning the mismatch between Rose's crime and punishment, are interesting. From a purely moral and intellectual perspective, they may even be correct. However, the fundamental difference between Pete Rose's gambling and the Bountygate/PED scandals can be simplified to one thing: money. Posnanski quotes a commonly cited explanation, "that what Rose did is worse than what Williams and company did because betting on baseball calls into question the legitimacy of the game while the bounty does not." To better understand the meaning of this accurate explanation, and its relevance to money, a brief review of behavioral psychology's learning theory is in order.
Behaviorism, theorized by John Watson, consists of classical conditioning and operant conditioning. The latter is the belief that rewarding a behavior increases the likelihood of repeating that behavior, whereas punishing the behavior will decrease the frequency of the behavior. Examples of this process are ubiquitous. Parents employ these tactics to get children to clean up, eat supper, or take medicine. Big Bang Theory's Sheldon succeeded in changing his roommate's girlfriend's behavior using operant conditioning. Several factors affect the effectiveness of the process, such as the type of reward chosen and the schedule in which it is administered. Researchers identify four schedules of reward: fixed interval, in which the reward is given every set amount of time (e.g. receiving a paycheck every 1st and 15th); random interval, in which the reward is given at random amounts of time (e.g. feeding a child at random times); fixed ratio, in which the reward is given every fixed performance of behavior (e.g. giving a bonus to employees for reaching a set number of sales); finally, the most effective timing of a reward is random ratio, in which the behavior is rewarded after random responses. An example of the final type of reward, winning at slot machines, also illustrates the effectiveness of this timing pattern.
Professional sports represent this final type of reward schedule. A fan tunes in to every game without knowing whether his team will win every game, every other game, or every third game. No team wins every game or championship, just as no team loses every game or championship. The uncertainty, created by "random" ratios of winning, creates the excitement surrounding all sports. For example, though the Super Bowl favorites won the game nearly 70% of the time (33 times out of 48), our eyes are glued to the screen waiting for the next Jets over Colts or Giants over Patriots upset. We watch every baseball game (or at least some of us do) because there's no warning or announcement before someone throws a perfect game or hits four homeruns in a game (these milestones are not exactly winning but represent a similar reinforcement pattern in engaging viewers). We turn on the game just as the gambler pulls the lever, anxiously anticipating the uncertain outcome.
This may seem simple, but if anything were to challenge the randomness of the game's outcome, or the "integrity of the game," sports would lose most of its appeal and many billions of dollars would be lost with it. Sports television ratings are at an all time high, yet other "sports" like wrestling, whose outcome is predetermined, enjoy modest ratings. Therefore, while the moral police are correct in observing hypocrisies, sports commissioners need to value "integrity of the game" more than player safety or any other issue. Only that magical phrase ensures the millions of fans and billions of dollars seeking that evasive reinforcement.
Bountygate actually also affects a game's outcome, just more discreetly. When you are trying to tackle someone in a manner that will knock them out of the game (thus earning you $), you go full force at them, this means that there is a much higher chance of them eluding you, but if you are on target you deliver a much stronger hit. It is a much riskier method of playing (if you are aiming to win)
ReplyDeleteAlthough you don't quite spell it out, I assume your point is that gambling decreases uncertainty with regard to the outcome more than PEDs or other illegal behavior. But this isn't obviously true for a number of reasons. In principle, if a team that would win 70% of its games were to randomly throw a few, uncertainty would actually increase. In fact, if that team were to increase its chances of winning by used PEDs, it would decrease uncertainty by moving further from maximal uncertainty (which is achieved at probability of 50%). Finally, Rose bet on (not against) his own team, so it isn't clear how this affects the randomness of the outcome at all. Maybe I misunderstood your point?
ReplyDeleteJust to clarfiy: First, Z's point about Bountygate is correct; the incentives can compromise the integrity of the game via injuries, missed tackles, or even unnecessary penalties. Ben's point is also correct that PED's can compromise the integrity of the game and that Pete Rose was trying to win.
ReplyDeleteMy point is a general one. Gambling on the game is the proverbial playing with fire; PED's and Bountygate are not. Gambling RISKS a point when outcomes can be pre-determined, other scandals do not. True, it probably never got to that point with Pete Rose as it probably did with the Black Sox. However, the risk involved in gambling is too great to allow leeway, as opposed to violence and drugs which distort the outcomes, but not in either direction (both sides use PED's and according to many players, both sides are involved in Bountygate-like systems) and not by as much. Therefore, each game includes plenty of randomness, even if players are risking penalties and injuries.