Apple lands near tree [Archive]

Ed_Severson

11-07-05, 11:06 PM

I'm with you guys but let me add Shoeless Joe Jackson

He's got my vote. I'll never understand how anybody can look at his stats from the 1919 World Series and come to the conclusion that he was playing for anything other than a championship.

He led White Sox regulars in average, hitting .375 compared to .203 for the rest of the team.

The White Sox scored 20 runs in 8 games; Jackson scored 5 of them.

He had 12 of Chicago's 59 hits in the Series, leading both teams in that category.

He drove in 5 of the other 15 runs the White Sox scored in that Series, and hit the team's only homerun in 8 games; in fact, it was the only homerun in the World Series.

Put him in the Hall ... he earned it too. :thumbup:

Stu

11-08-05, 07:08 AM

He absolutely deserves to be in the Hall of Fame.

Remember, folks ... it ain't the Character Hall of Fame, it's the Baseball Hall of Fame. He's one of the greatest baseball players ever.

Put Charlie Hustle in the Hall ... he earned it.

Well I guess Rafael Palmerio deserves to be in there too then. 500+ bombs is usually a ticket in. He earned it. :shakehead

chop456

11-08-05, 07:12 AM

Rose's indescretions were off the field, Palmiero's weren't.

Ed_Severson

11-08-05, 09:47 AM

Well I guess Rafael Palmerio deserves to be in there too then. 500+ bombs is usually a ticket in. He earned it. :shakehead

When did Bud Selig declare gambling to be a performance-enhancing substance? :gomer:

Methanolandbrats

11-08-05, 10:29 AM

Ted Williams once said that the most difficult athletic skill was to hit a major league pitch.

**** Ted Williams, what sport did he play again? The 7-10 split is the most difficult task in all of sport.

Ankf00

11-08-05, 10:43 AM

Rose's indescretions were off the field, Palmiero's weren't.

going to the right bookie gives you .020 BA boost :gomer:

Palmiero's 500 dongs came before 'roids were banned, he belongs too. Unless someone's got some surefire way of going back in time and proving who was on 'roids and who wasn't... Bud Selig would be very interested in that one. :gomer:

chop456

11-08-05, 11:34 AM

The 7-10 split is the most difficult task in all of sport.

Next to the Triple Lindy.

skaven

11-08-05, 12:05 PM

Next to the Triple Lindy.

:thumbup: :D

IlliniRacer

11-08-05, 01:25 PM

**** Ted Williams, what sport did he play again? The 7-10 split is the most difficult task in all of sport.

I thought it was slinging a Sprint around Eldora with the likes of Weldon, Matsuura and Helio. :gomer:

Andrew Longman

11-08-05, 01:45 PM

I always had an appreciation for the way Charley Hustle played the game and hit a ball. It was exactly as the sport should be played. And he did it well enough that by all accepted standards he should be in the Hall.

Many other are in the Hall despite transgressions off and sometimes on the field. Ty Cobb was not a nice guy to put it mildly. Mickey Mantle told us all late in life what a disappointment he felt he was as a father and human. Pete Rose's failing were off the field (Or were they? We'll never know)

The ONLY thing that matters is that HE BET ON BASEBALL AND BET ON HIS GAMES AS A MANAGER WITH THE ABILITY TO DIRECTLY INFLUENCE THE GAME.

Sorry to shout, but that is the point that seems to always be forgotten in these arguments. Betting is the third rail in sports. Ever since the Black Soxs threw the series it is the one thing everyone agrees is a capital crime, no excuse, no negotiation. Do ANYTHING to give the fan doubt about the authenticity of the competition and it ruins the sport and you are dealt with severely.

Second, Pete Rose agreed to the terms of the ban when he was caught. And he agreed not to talk about it in public. It was frankly all he could do. They had him cold. MLB has lived up to the agreement but Rose almost from day 1 has been pleading his case in the court of public opinion and many of us are falling for it.

His records stand. His glove and uniform can be in the Hall, or Smithsonian or whatever for all I care. But don't ignore the agreement he made and the importance of maintaining the integrity of the sport. And don't let yourself be manipulated by his spin and the spin of his handlers.

A much harder call will be what to do with all these juiced players. In this case perhaps they belong in the Hall because they are the dominate players of their era (and during a time when the roids were illegal but allowed by the sport). In this case there is at best a case for aterisking the stats (which I hate in deference to Maris), but it ignores all sorts of other changes across the eras around the ball, size of parks, etc.

Ed_Severson

11-08-05, 04:00 PM

I always had an appreciation for the way Charley Hustle played the game and hit a ball. It was exactly as the sport should be played. And he did it well enough that by all accepted standards he should be in the Hall.

Okay, so you're familiar with Pete Rose. This is a good first step. Just to make sure we're on the same page, the Pete Rose you're talking about is the guy who lots of people (and rightly so) consider to be about the most arrogant son of a bitch in the universe, no?

Good.

The ONLY thing that matters is that HE BET ON BASEBALL AND BET ON HIS GAMES AS A MANAGER WITH THE ABILITY TO DIRECTLY INFLUENCE THE GAME.

What exactly is it about this fact that inclines you to believe that Rose ever wagered against his team?

I understand that the idiots who run baseball these days have made a habit out of creating hobgoblins from recreational activites which don't really have any relation to baseball. Gambling is one of those.

Were it an issue similar to the 1919 Black Sox scandal, where players were clearly performing poorly to essentially collect on a wager against themselves, I could see the point. But Rose, although he has readily acknowledged that he bet on baseball, and in fact on his own team, has never admitted to betting against his own team. Major League Baseball has never been able to produce any evidence that he ever did wager against his own team. And frankly, the guy has far too high an opinion of himself to have ever even considered betting against himself or his team.

I don't put too much stock in the "agreement" he reached with Major League Baseball, particularly when there were no discernable differences between the consequences he faced by either accepting or rejecting it. Either way, the goofballs who were running baseball thought they had their witch, and they were going to burn him at the stake.

Is recognizing the accomplishments of great baseball players one of Major League Baseball's functions? Absolutely. Is serving as America's moral compass one of Major League Baseball's functions? It shouldn't be, but they have apparently managed to convince themselves that it is.

If they can ever actually prove that Pete Rose negatively influenced his team's play to win money, then they've got a case. Until that day, which I suspect will coincide with a blizzard in Hades, Pete Rose belongs in the Major League Baseball Hall of Fame. Period.

rabbit

11-08-05, 04:03 PM

Good post, Ed.

BTW, for those of you not up on your baseball history, Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker both admitted to betting on baseball. They are both in the Hall.

Here's a great book for those who think baseball players are as pure as the wind-driven snow. Field of Screams: The Dark Underside of America's National Pastime (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393311384/qid=1131480624/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-6063298-3639951?v=glance&s=books)

FTG

11-08-05, 05:13 PM

I'm with Rabbit and Ed. If you want to start putting up character filters, Ty Cobb should be one of the first to be booted from Cooperstown.

Agreed. Cobb was racist. By having Cobb in, and not letting Rose in, Major League Baseball is saying is that gambling is worse than racism. It's not.

But to ed's point, if you bet for your team on some days, and not others, you are essentially betting that your team will lose on the days that you don't make a bet. I don't see how you can spin it any other way. (Maybe if Rose bet an equal amount on all 162 games you could minimize his crime, but he didn't.)

Baseball should do the Clinton thing, "Was president but..." "More hits than anyone else but..." People can decide for themselves if what comes before the but is more important that what comes after.

Ed_Severson

11-08-05, 05:20 PM

But to ed's point, if you bet for your team on some days, and not others, you are essentially betting that your team will lose on the days that you don't make a bet.

Not even close. One gives you incentive to make sure you lose; the other is incentive-neutral. If you want to use that line of argument, anybody who doesn't bet on his team at all is "essentially betting that his team will lose."

Either Pete Rose wagered against his own team or he didn't. If he did, they've got a reason to ban him for life. If he didn't, they don't. As far as they can prove, he didn't.

Major League Baseball needs to worry more about the baseball business and less about the morals business, lest they get both of them quite wrong.

Dirty Sanchez

11-08-05, 05:34 PM

induct him into the hall of fame the day after he dies.

Stu

11-08-05, 06:43 PM

Major League Baseball needs to worry more about the baseball business and less about the morals business, lest they get both of them quite wrong.

So you would support steroids then? Cuz steroids = homers and homers = people in the seats which = $$$$.

Ed_Severson

11-08-05, 08:20 PM

Stu

11-08-05, 08:51 PM

Stu, your fixation with steroids is about as :gomer: as it gets. It's completely irrelevant here.

You are apparently living under the impression that Major League Baseball should be a primary source of morality and ethics. Good luck to you on that one; I think I'll make those decisions without Bud Selig's guidance. :gomer:

They are related because they are both moral issues when it comes to the game. You shouldn't be betting on your own team. You shouldn't be taking performance enhancing drugs. While not exactly the same thing, they are both moral issues that have an impact on the game.

By the way, you still didnt answer my question. Should I assume that you would then support steroids because it makes players better which is better business than baseball? Or are you backtracking on your statement, do you believe that there should be some morals in the game?

Ankf00

11-08-05, 09:04 PM

a kia is a car, an aston-martin is a car, they're both cars that move you from point A to point B :gomer:

Ed_Severson

11-08-05, 09:14 PM

They are related because they are both moral issues when it comes to the game.

Neither are moral issues unless you derive your morality from baseball. They are, however, competition issues.

By the way, you still didnt answer my question.

Because it's not relevant to the topic, which, since you seem to have forgotten, is whether or not Pete Rose deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. Got any evidence that Rose ever took steroids? If not, steroids are not relevant here.

Should I assume that you would then support steroids because it makes players better which is better business than baseball?

How nice of you to ask. :rolleyes: You have clearly already assumed that, which makes me wonder why I'm even bothering. You seem to be more interested in arguing what you think I said than what I actually said. Unless I have elsewhere registered my total disagreement with every decision ever made by Major League Baseball, I don't believe I've addressed the steroid issue at all, other than to say that it isn't relevant to Pete Rose's case.

Or are you backtracking on your statement, do you believe that there should be some morals in the game?

Smooth dancer though I may be, I cannot backtrack from a statement which I never made.

I don't think it can be put in any more simple terms than this -- Major League Baseball is an entity which exists to oversee the game of baseball, and do nothing more. It is not Major League Baseball's societal function to define right and wrong for the universe. Nonetheless, that is a function which they clearly believe they are supposed to serve. In attempting to do so, they detract focus from their real purpose.

Stu

11-08-05, 09:30 PM

Neither are moral issues unless you derive your morality from baseball. They are, however, competition issues.

How nice of you to ask. :rolleyes: You have clearly already assumed that, which makes me wonder why I'm even bothering. You seem to be more interested in arguing what you think I said than what I actually said. Unless I have elsewhere registered my total disagreement with every decision ever made by Major League Baseball, I don't believe I've addressed the steroid issue at all, other than to say that it isn't relevant to Pete Rose's case.

Smooth dancer though I may be, I cannot backtrack from a statement which I never made.

I don't think it can be put in any more simple terms than this -- Major League Baseball is an entity which exists to oversee the game of baseball, and do nothing more. It is not Major League Baseball's societal function to define right and wrong for the universe. Nonetheless, that is a function which they clearly believe they are supposed to serve. In attempting to do so, they detract focus from their real purpose.

They are not trying to define right and wrong for the universe. They are trying to define right and wrong for themselves. I've never seen them come out and say gambling is wrong for common people, but they are saying it is wrong for their players/managers who have an impact on outcomes to gamble on their own games.

How is doing something illegal behind your boss' back not a moral issue? Everyone who took steroids was breaking the law to get better and lying about not doing it. Rose was being deceitful when he would break the law and gamble on sports. Both illegal, both moral issues, both affecting MLB.

If MLB isnt supposed to define right and wrong for themselves, maybe they should encourage players to gamble on their own games. That way it gives them more incentive to win. And apparently MLB wouldnt be doing anything wrong because who are they to try and act all moral? :shakehead

Stu

11-08-05, 09:34 PM

Because it's not relevant to the topic, which, since you seem to have forgotten, is whether or not Pete Rose deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. Got any evidence that Rose ever took steroids? If not, steroids are not relevant here.

Maybe its relevant because both steroids and gambling on baseball (at least where Rose was doing it) are illegal actions related to the sport.

Ankf00

11-08-05, 09:45 PM

If MLB isnt supposed to define right and wrong for themselves, maybe they should encourage players to gamble on their own games. That way it gives them more incentive to win. And apparently MLB wouldnt be doing anything wrong because who are they to try and act all moral? :shakehead

life isn't binary. neither is sports beyond the scoreboard. MLB is supposed to define competition issues. In this regard, gambling and steroids become ethics issues.

The gambling as a manager does not take anything away from Rose's accomplishments on the field. Cobb admitted to gambling, does that somehow take away his accomplishments?

Steroids is a completely unrelated matter to gambling beyond "they're both wrong."

Ed_Severson

11-08-05, 09:58 PM

I'm thinking of a pretty, pretty picture:

<---- The Point ------

Stu

Anybody else see it? :gomer:

Okay, so Major League Baseball isn't trying to function as a moral compass for society, but rather only for themselves.

Yeah, right.

Why should wagering on your own team to win be outlawed? What's the message here? Is it:

A) "Nobody should be allowed to give himself incentive to play harder."
B) "Gambling is bad, kids. Don't do it!"

Why should marijuana use, among other substance use, be outlawed? What's the message here? Is it:

A) "Smoking marijuana gives you an unfair advantage."
B) "Smoking marijuana is bad, kids. The government says so! Don't do it!"

When Bud Selig released the following statement ...

"I urge the players and their association to emerge from this meeting ready to join me in adopting a new, stronger drug-testing policy modeled after our minor-league program that will once and for all rid the game of the scourge of illegal drugs."

... what was the message there? Was it:

A) "Taking steroids gives you an unfair advantage."
B) "Taking steroids is wrong, kids. The government says so! Don't do it!"

None of these items are issues because of how they affect the competitive nature of baseball, which should be Major League Baseball's only concern. They're issues because Major League Baseball is under the mistaken impression that people need them to worry more about the moral implications of their policies than the baseball implications.

If Major League Baseball wants to act like a source of morality, they might try enacting one of the founding principles of this country -- innocent until proven guilty -- instead of running along parroting whatever hysterical nonsense about the hobgoblin of the day happens to be. When Major League Baseball says to the world "Pete Rose was one of the greatest baseball players ever, and we're going to honor him for his accomplishments in the game of baseball" they will be saying something relevant. When they say to the world "we have to rid the game of the scourge of illegal drugs" they're saying nothing relevant at all.

I think the harm in betting against your own team is pretty obvious. The harm in betting for your own team is nonexistant, but they stupidly punish it anyway -- not because it has an adverse effect on the competition, but because they believe they have to act morally for the sake of society, no matter how screwy their morals are.

I can see where this could be confusing if you're used to having somebody else decide right and wrong for you. The government says taking steroids is wrong, so if you do it, you must certainly be embroiled in a moral issue, and Major League Baseball must act now to make sure kids around the world know that you should never have taken steroids, because steroids are wrong. The government says gambling is wrong, so if you do it, you must certainly be embroiled in a moral issue, and Major League Baseball must act now to make sure kids around the world know that you should never have gambled, because gambling is wrong.

Some of us live in a universe where right and wrong exists in a realm not defined by the federal government or by Major League Baseball. Those of us who live in that universe would like to see Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame because he was a pretty damn good baseball player and his accomplishments on the field merit recognition as such. Given that this function falls under Major League Baseball's domain, we don't think that's too much to ask.

Ed_Severson

11-08-05, 10:02 PM

Steroids is a completely unrelated matter to gambling beyond "they're both wrong."

They're not even related on that level. Gambling on one's own team to win does not adversely affect the competitive nature of the game, and is therefore not wrong, Major League Baseball be damned. They've only decided it's "wrong" because they lack the clarity of thought to separate the consequences of the action from the societal stigma placed on gambling.

Ed_Severson

11-08-05, 10:36 PM

As much fun as this has been, I gotta go finish my Finite Element Analysis homework. Tonight's assignment:

1) Convince 10 children that Pete Rose was a monster. Bonus points will be awarded if any of them sign a petition to have him executed by firing squad in front of Major League Baseball headquarters.

2) Craft a handwritten statement in which you acknowledge Bud Selig as your Lord and Savior.

3) Suggest 5 more vices that should be outlawed by Major League Baseball.

At least I don't have to do any calculus. :thumbup: :gomer:

Ankf00

11-08-05, 10:40 PM

F that, triple integrals > generating mesh

Stu

11-08-05, 10:51 PM

Ed, you seem to make the assumption that Rose never betted against the Reds. While there is no proof that he did, there is no proof that he didnt. At least not public proof (other than him saying he didn't do it). But Rose was quick to accept his banishment from baseball back in 1989. Note that he accepted the ban, it wasnt forced upon him. In return, MLB stopped its investigation into his gambling on baseball.

So if the guy is gonna accept the ban, and agree that he shouldn't be in the hall of fame, then why do you think you know more than he does about his own situation.

Pete Rose is an embarassment to baseball. He has been nothing but childish over the last 2 decades, and does not deserve to be in the hall. I'd bet (unfunny pun intended) that if he were eligible, he wouldnt even get the 75% of votes needed to get in.

Ed_Severson

11-08-05, 11:39 PM

Ed, you seem to make the assumption that Rose never betted against the Reds.

Yeah, it's that "innocent until proven guilty" concept. :gomer:

Note that he accepted the ban, it wasnt forced upon him. In return, MLB stopped its investigation into his gambling on baseball.

:rolleyes:

Yeah, he "accepted" it. He had so many options.

So if the guy is gonna accept the ban, and agree that he shouldn't be in the hall of fame

As soon as he actually does either of those things, you let me know.

then why do you think you know more than he does about his own situation.

This coming from the guy who operates on the assumption that Rose bet against his own team, despite the fact that there has never been even a shred of evidence to support that claim? Who's pretending like he knows more about the situation than he really does here, Stu?

I'd bet (unfunny pun intended) that if he were eligible, he wouldnt even get the 75% of votes needed to get in.

Perhaps, but the voters should get the opportunity to make that call for themselves. Major League Baseball has never proven that Rose did anything to cause objective harm to the game, but they villified him anyway.

Of course, it would never have worked without patsies like you, who swallow their version of morality whole without a second thought.

You da man. :gomer:

Stu

11-09-05, 12:09 AM

As soon as he actually does either of those things, you let me know.

Well he signed a document saying he agreed to the ban, and the ban obviously meant he agreed to not being in the HOF.

This coming from the guy who operates on the assumption that Rose bet against his own team, despite the fact that there has never been even a shred of evidence to support that claim? Who's pretending like he knows more about the situation than he really does here, Stu?

You expect me to believe a guy who bet on his own sport? Thats trustworthy. Oh and all his antics over the last 20 years have really made me believe he is a credible guy.

Of course, it would never have worked without patsies like you, who swallow their version of morality whole without a second thought.

You da man. :gomer:

Sweet, name calling. :rolleyes:

Ed_Severson

11-09-05, 12:51 AM

You expect me to believe a guy who bet on his own sport? Thats trustworthy.

I rest my case.

"He gambled, and gambling is wrong, period. I didn't even have to think about that one -- baseball told me so!"

I don't expect you to believe in anything other than the Major League Baseball party line, because you haven't demonstrated the ability to process any thought independent of that. You haven't even bothered to make a case against gambling for your own team to win; you merely cling to the idea that it's "wrong" because the moral gurus at MLB said so. But know this -- they tried awfully damn hard to prove that Rose wagered against his own team, and they came up empty.

That won't matter to types like you, though. Baseball has spoken, so it must be so, objectivity be damned.

Joelski

11-09-05, 12:57 AM

It took him a while but he came clean. A baseball player should be judged on his accomplishments on the field. The Pope was not without sin, so why can't Pete be forgiven in his lifetime? As far as I'm concerned, Giamatti got his for banning Rose, but like him or not, nobody can deny his achievements in the sport. I myself lost interest in MLB after the last strike; one of the many diservices done to the sport by people far greedier than Rose. What he did was wrong, but in light of other player's far nastier indiscretions the only good and honorable thing to do is to forgive the man so he can evangelize the sport while he can. By ignoring his pleas for mercy, Baseball shows that it is no better than a common, petty, grudge-holder.

Ed_Severson

11-09-05, 01:04 AM

Lookout, dude ... you're likely to get reported directly to Bud's office for investigation.

He's the crime fighter of the century! :gomer:

Joelski

11-09-05, 01:07 AM

Lookout, dude ... you're likely to get reported directly to Bud's office for investigation.

He's the crime fighter of the century! :gomer:

Oh dear, I'm so skeered. :gomer:

We'll just turn "whoever" in to the ministry of internet tattletales. :rofl:

fourrunner

11-09-05, 01:21 AM

The Worst thing to happen for Pete's chances to get into the Hall was the Death of Bart Giamotti ... I'm certain in their Alchoholic Stupors the Sportswriters blamed his death on Pete !

No one will ever know if Bart would have eventually lifted the ban ... but he was a decent guy who may have considered it after sufficient time !

Just seems stupid to me to have future generations visiting the Hall, who did not experience his exploits during his lifetime will be denied the experience !

Baseball is a Sport with all sorts of "Asterix" next to names, stats, etc. so Put Pete into the Hall WITH a complete explanation of his transgressions along side his SIGNIFICANT accomplishments ...

Betcha it would be the MOST POPULAR Exhibit there!!

Hard Driver

11-09-05, 01:35 AM

Pete deserves his place, they will always put the footnote, which is his cross to bear, but he deserves in.

Michaelhatesfans

11-09-05, 02:01 AM

It's baseball. Who gives a ****? :cool:

Ankf00

11-09-05, 02:04 AM

It's baseball. Who gives a ****? :cool:

ahhh, you just need some more gin to properly enjoy the sport :D

Tony George

11-09-05, 02:39 AM

Pete Rose forever...
Bud Selig :mad: never!!!

Stu

11-09-05, 08:03 AM

That won't matter to types like you, though. Baseball has spoken, so it must be so, objectivity be damned.'

And Pete Rose has spoken, when he signed the Plea Bargain saying he did something illegal and detrmental to baseball and would be banned from the MLB.

You say he should be guilty until proven innocent. Well he declared himself of guilt when he signed that plea bargain. If he truley felt he did nothing wrong, or that he only bet for his team which should have no affect on the game, then he could have faught the battle in court. But he ACCEPTED the penalty.

Apparently signing contracts is pretty darn meaningless to you.

rabbit

11-09-05, 09:21 AM

Well he declared himself of guilt when he signed that plea bargain.Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong...

The agreement was that THERE WOULD BE NO FINDING OF GUILT by MLB and Rose would have the opportunity to apply for reinstatement after one year. Then MLB broke its end of the contract when Giamatti said during the press conference that, in his personal opinion, Rose had bet on baseball. They never intended to let him back in so they lied to him to coerce him into signing the agreement. Then, Giammati's ticker went kaput and Fay Vincent, who hated Rose more than his back-stabbing predecessor did, assumed the throne. Rose was the victim of his own stupidity and the victim of a group of Ivy League elites who had no use for a brash guy from a rough blue-collar Cincinnati neighborhood.

But he is still the greatest hitter in the history of the game.

Ed_Severson

11-09-05, 10:30 AM

You say he should be guilty until proven innocent.

No, that's your contention. :gomer:

Say what you will about Rose "accepting" the ban ... we've been over that already. His choices were:

A) Accept a one year ban from baseball (that worked out, didn't it?)
B) Refuse to accept the deal and be banned from baseball for life.

He did the best thing he could do from a PR standpoint -- take the option that makes him look contrite so he would have public sympathy when he pled his case down the road, which he was supposed to have the opportunity to do.

If anybody hasn't honored their part of that agreement, it isn't Pete Rose. Apparently the terms of the contract are pretty darn meaningless to you; it only matters whether or not you signed it. :gomer:

So, in summary, your case thus far is:

-- Gambling is wrong, even though I can't explain why.
-- Pete Rose should be presumed guilty until proven innocent, even though nobody ever proved he did anything wrong.
-- Pete Rose agreed to a lifetime ban from baseball (which is factually incorrect).
-- Pete Rose acted like a kid once when I saw him on TV, so he doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame.

It's a damn shame none of those have anything to do with how great a baseball player he was, which is the only thing that should determine whether or not he gets his place in the Hall of Fame.

It's a good thing we have guys like you to tell us what Major League Baseball says is right and wrong ... how ever could we possibly decide on our own? :gomer:

Andrew Longman

11-09-05, 11:22 AM

The steroid discussion is irrelevant because until recently their use was not in violation of the rules of baseball (even though they have long been against the law without a doctors prescription)

While some may make a qualitative difference between betting for or against your team the rules of baseball do not.

The rule is very simple and clear. You bet, you are banned from baseball. Don't like the rule? Don't play baseball. The folks running the league get to make those rules, we do not.

Pete Rose bet on baseball. Giamotti had proof (betting slips, witnesses) at the time. Pete has now admitted it. For the good of the game, better are kept away from the game. Period.

Now here is the question I have long thought was much more relevant. What does being banned from baseball really have to do with being in the Hall? Of course the answer is because MLB runs the Hall. Either you are banned or you are not, right? Maybe not.

Being banned means you can't work in the sport or attend games. If you bet I can see the point in that. But the Hall is just a museum really. Banning people from the sport does not mean we are denying they exist or ever existed.

All MLB has to do is to say that you do not have to be actively involved in the sport to be included in the Hall. 95% of the people in the Hall are dead or retired from any connection with the sport anyway. What difference does it make?

I think the answer is because Pete Rose is an arrogant jerk with a huge sense of entitlement and no remorse. He is still being punished for a crime he may now admit to but not fully appreciate.

rabbit

11-09-05, 11:34 AM

For the good of the game, better are kept away from the game. Period.
So explain Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker for me.

Kenesaw Mountain Landis, the commissioner who banned the eight White Sox players, once privately conceded that to throw out everyone in baseball who was involved with gambling would leave only a handful of players remaining. Those eight, and Pete Rose, are merely an attempt by baseball to put up a squeakly clean front. It may not be as bad as boxing, but the game is corrupt from top to bottom.

Stu

11-09-05, 12:17 PM

The steroid discussion is irrelevant because until recently their use was not in violation of the rules of baseball (even though they have long been against the law without a doctors prescription)

I agree with you 99% of the way. Except when I first brought up Roids, I was talking about Palmeiro and him specifically being in the hall. He was found doing roids after they were officially against the rules of MLB. Prior to the new rules, it was fair game, even if against the law.

Stu

11-09-05, 12:34 PM

No, that's your contention. :gomer:

Say what you will about Rose "accepting" the ban ... we've been over that already. His choices were:

A) Accept a one year ban from baseball (that worked out, didn't it?)
B) Refuse to accept the deal and be banned from baseball for life.

Well, here is an exerpt from the contract.

a. Peter Edward Rose is hereby declared permanetly ineligible in accordance with Major League Rule 21 and placed on the Ineligible list.

b. Nothing in this agreement shall deprive Peter Edward Rose of the rights under Major League Rule 15(c) to apply for reinstatement. Peter Edward Rose agrees not to challenge, appeal or otherwise contest the decision of, or the procedure employed by, the Commisioner or any future Commisioner in the evaluation of any application for reinstatement.

Now where does it say the ban would be only 1 year, and where does it say that he would be reinstated if he just reapplied for it.

He did the best thing he could do from a PR standpoint -- take the option that makes him look contrite so he would have public sympathy when he pled his case down the road, which he was supposed to have the opportunity to do..

He sure has made a great case for himself with all the books and interviews hes done over the years.

If anybody hasn't honored their part of that agreement, it isn't Pete Rose. Apparently the terms of the contract are pretty darn meaningless to you; it only matters whether or not you signed it. :gomer:

Where did MLB not honor their agreement?

So, in summary, your case thus far is:

-- Gambling is wrong, even though I can't explain why.
-- Pete Rose should be presumed guilty until proven innocent, even though nobody ever proved he did anything wrong.
-- Pete Rose agreed to a lifetime ban from baseball (which is factually incorrect).
-- Pete Rose acted like a kid once when I saw him on TV, so he doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame.

-- Gambling is wrong when it is on your own team.
-- Pete Rose signed a deal saying he would be permanately banned with the option to be reinstated. If he didnt like the deal, he could have taken MLB to court.
-- See above
-- Pete Rose does act like a kid, he is an embarrassment, and combining that with his actions as manager, and with his signed plea agreement, he doesnt belong in the hall. Acting like a fool only makes me realize that he probably was guilty. Manny Ramirez deserves to be in the hall, and he acts like a fool all the time, but he hasnt done anything wrong.

It's a damn shame none of those have anything to do with how great a baseball player he was, which is the only thing that should determine whether or not he gets his place in the Hall of Fame.

Thats cool. Maybe if David Ortiz hits .450 for the rest of his career, but he goes out and murders the rest of his team in his final season, we should induct him.

It's a good thing we have guys like you to tell us what Major League Baseball says is right and wrong ... how ever could we possibly decide on our own? :gomer:

You have decided on your own. But guess what, you don't run MLB. So until you do, deal with it. It's their decision, I just happen to agree with it.

Methanolandbrats

11-09-05, 12:40 PM

I can't stand baseball, but I think they should put him in the Hall. It's the Baseball Hall of Fame, not the Clean Living Hall of Fame. I'll bet many of the players in the Hall were either gamblers, whore mongers, illegal drug abusers, drunks, wife abusers or any combination of the above. Many of them were probably flaming ********s who just happened to be able to hit a ball. Hell, look at the NBA, if it was'nt for basketball, half of the players would be in prison and they have a hall of fame. Same for most of the NFL. Pete was a saint compared to the current crop of "athletes".

Andrew Longman

11-09-05, 02:03 PM

I agree with you 99% of the way. Except when I first brought up Roids, I was talking about Palmeiro and him specifically being in the hall. He was found doing roids after they were officially against the rules of MLB. Prior to the new rules, it was fair game, even if against the law.

Palmero will prove an interesting dilemma. His stats are certainly impressive and on par with others in the Hall. Almost all of those stats came before roids were against the rules and before he was caught, but you have assume he's been a long time user.

But all that aside, while he has gaudy stats, Palmero has hardly been a dominating player of his era. I don't have stats handy so I may be overstating this somewhat, but he has no rings, handful of all star appearances, no MVPs, rarely led the league in a category and he never was someone the opposition absolutely feared. He wasn't even the best player on most of his teams. As a Yankee fan I can't remember him ever beating them with a clutch game winning hit or monster home run. Probably happened but not enough to form an impression (ask me about Ortiz though).

My point is that even before the roid issue, he was going to be a bit controversial because while his numbers would seem to give him automatic entry, he lacked many of the intangibles that keep a lot of players out (can you say Jim Rice?)

Now back to Rose

rabbit

11-09-05, 02:04 PM

Where did MLB not honor their agreement?
Umm, when Giamatti said "In my opinion, Pete Rose bet on baseball." during the press conference announcing the ban.

The only thing keeping Pete Rose out of the Hall of Fame is the Hall of Fame. The Hall Board of Directors (http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/about/board.htm) made that decision in 1991, saying that Rose could only be inducted if he was reinstated. Prior to that he was still eligible. The Board conveniently overlooked Speaker and Cobb in making the decision.

Andrew Longman

11-09-05, 02:18 PM

So explain Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker for me.

Kenesaw Mountain Landis, the commissioner who banned the eight White Sox players, once privately conceded that to throw out everyone in baseball who was involved with gambling would leave only a handful of players remaining. Those eight, and Pete Rose, are merely an attempt by baseball to put up a squeakly clean front. It may not be as bad as boxing, but the game is corrupt from top to bottom.

I am not aware of Cobb or Speaker being involved in gambling. Not saying you're wrong, just that I need to be educated. But Cobb for one was an especially unsavory gent, but that is a different matter.

Being an immoral, selfish jerk is not necessarily bad for the game. Many of the fans in the stands are no better and could care less who he raped, hit, robbed or worse.

That same person may be bad for the team though and become a distraction to the team (see Palmero, Terrell Owens). Teams may discard these player because of how it effects their success on the field. But that a different issue with different decision makers.

What's bad for the game is when fans begin to doubt that what they are seeing is real competition. Race fans hate team orders or Kanaan lifting, but at least that is artifical competition within, not among teams.

Your quote of Landis is new to me, but believable. The world was much more lawless then. Your statement that baseball today is corrupt top to bottom seem over the top. I see no evidence of that in regards to gambling (not a big gambling sport anyway compared to football, where I am surprised we have not seen even to whisper of corruption).

You may however have made my point for me. If the leaders of baseball do not come down hard when players in their biggest game and their greatest stars are obviously involved in gambling, what hope does anyone have that they will deal with more minor gambling offenses by more minor players?

rabbit

11-09-05, 02:35 PM

http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/ballplayers/C/Cobb_Ty.stm

Despite five straight winning seasons as manager, Cobb, followed a week later by Indians player-manager Speaker, suddenly retired after the 1926 season. The day after Christmas in 1926, the public found out why: Dutch Leonard, a disgruntled former player who had been released by both managers, accused Cobb and Speaker of fixing a game on September 24, 1919. Both stars, plus Cleveland outfielder Smokey Joe Wood, had allegedly agreed to let Detroit win the game to give the Tigers third place. Upon hearing the allegations, American League president Ban Johnson forced the two stars to quit. But Commissioner Kenesaw Landis cleared and reinstated both players when Leonard refused to leave California to testify. Cobb ended up in Philadelphia with Connie Mack, who defended the hated Cobb during the ordeal, and Cobb played two more years before retiring for good after a .328 season in 1928. Leonard did not go to Chicago to testify because he feared for his life. Though Cobb continued to play, he was never allowed to manage.

Andrew Longman

11-09-05, 03:25 PM

http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/ballplayers/C/Cobb_Ty.stm

Leonard did not go to Chicago to testify because he feared for his life. Though Cobb continued to play, he was never allowed to manage.

http://wso.williams.edu/~jkossuth/cobb/retirement.htm

Slightly different take on same issue. Both accounts agree that they were both reinstated (if by one account only partially). Either way they were reinstated. Rose has not.

Gangrel

11-09-05, 03:57 PM

He's got my vote. I'll never understand how anybody can look at his stats from the 1919 World Series and come to the conclusion that he was playing for anything other than a championship.

He led White Sox regulars in average, hitting .375 compared to .203 for the rest of the team.

The White Sox scored 20 runs in 8 games; Jackson scored 5 of them.

He had 12 of Chicago's 59 hits in the Series, leading both teams in that category.

He drove in 5 of the other 15 runs the White Sox scored in that Series, and hit the team's only homerun in 8 games; in fact, it was the only homerun in the World Series.

Put him in the Hall ... he earned it too. :thumbup:

Shoeless Joe: I agree with you guys, but I did read on one web site that he admitted to dogging it on some plays. I have not seen any support for this, and would be interested in any that can be presented...and though I find it hard to believe given his numbers that he had anything to do with throwing the series, if he did in fact make that admission, I would find it difficult to exonorate him. Good thing the 2005 Sox freed him from under that pall.

Gangrel

11-09-05, 04:12 PM

They are related because they are both moral issues when it comes to the game. You shouldn't be betting on your own team. You shouldn't be taking performance enhancing drugs. While not exactly the same thing, they are both moral issues that have an impact on the game.

By the way, you still didnt answer my question. Should I assume that you would then support steroids because it makes players better which is better business than baseball? Or are you backtracking on your statement, do you believe that there should be some morals in the game?

Stu, what you are missing here is that the banning of steroids shouldn't have anything to do with morality. It should have to do with the integrity of the numbers posted in the game. I doubt you want to hear this, though, because it makes your argument go away. If we take that approach, steroids and gambling are no longer both moral issues.

Gambling against your own team would give you incentive to decrease performance on the field. This is where the Black Sox went awrigah. They didn't even gamble themselves. They took a payoff from a gambler to throw the games.

Gambling for your own team, however, gives you incentive to do what? Go out on the field and win? Thought that was the whole idea in the first place. The only way this goes wrong is if you are paying off the other team to lose. I may be naive, but I don't recall that alligation being made against Pete Rose. :gomer:

My thought is, if a player is caught repeatedly with pot or cocaine...after whatever other necessary options are exhausted (I love buerocracy), throw him out of the game...but if he has hall of fame numbers, let him into the hall. Gambling problem? Let him in too. If he was gambiling against himself or his team, he probably don't have hall of fame numbers to begin with. If he was gambling for...well, what's the problem? If a guy hit 75 homers in a season, but that season tested positive for steroids (because we don't know for sure if he was in previous seasons...), well now...that might help to explain how he hit 75 homers. This is where they need to look at keeping the guy out of the hall of fame. Not because it is morally wrong to use steroids, but because steroids directly helped this guy get the numbers that would put him into the hall.

Take the morality out of the issue, and look at it from a performance standpoint.

Likewise, quit looking to the President of the US for guidance on how we should behave morally. What everyone misses is that Clinton didn't get impeached for getting a hummer from an intern. He got impeached for lying to Congress. Purgeory and having a fling are miles apart, but everyone sees the story they want to see. Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story... :D

Ed_Severson

11-09-05, 04:52 PM

Gambling against your own team would give you incentive to decrease performance on the field. This is where the Black Sox went awrigah. They didn't even gamble themselves. They took a payoff from a gambler to throw the games.

Gambling for your own team, however, gives you incentive to do what? Go out on the field and win? Thought that was the whole idea in the first place. The only way this goes wrong is if you are paying off the other team to lose. I may be naive, but I don't recall that alligation being made against Pete Rose. :gomer:

But, but, but ... "You shouldn't be betting on your own team. Gambling is wrong when it is on your own team."

Thus saith Major League Baseball, and Stu just happens to agree with them. There is no need for explanation, there is no room for opposing views, there is no point in thinking the issue through for yourself.

Stu, you might want to ask Bud Selig to send you some updated talking points. The ones you're working from here aren't making much of a case.

Stu

11-09-05, 05:01 PM

Thus saith Major League Baseball, and Pete Rose's signature and Stu just happens to agree with them.

Fixed that for you. :D

Gangrel

11-09-05, 05:25 PM

Fixed that for you. :D

still haven't addressed my points, stu... :gomer:

TrueBrit

11-09-05, 06:08 PM

Gangrel

11-09-05, 06:11 PM

Baseball is based on a girls game played in the UK called 'Rounders'...

The fact that grown men dressed in pajamas get paid obscenely large amounts of cabbage to play a girls P.E. game makes me laugh.... :laugh:

And.......another country heard from....thanks for playing....

Ank, you wanna' tell the man what his consolation prize is? :D

Ankf00

11-09-05, 07:03 PM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v612/Ankf00/cornydog7fz.jpg

:gomer:

(thanks dude)

Gnam

11-09-05, 07:44 PM

http://img484.imageshack.us/img484/1706/cornydog7fz.jpg

TravelGal

11-09-05, 07:48 PM

Umm, when Giamatti said "In my opinion, Pete Rose bet on baseball." during the press conference announcing the ban.

The only thing keeping Pete Rose out of the Hall of Fame is the Hall of Fame. The Hall Board of Directors (http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/about/board.htm) made that decision in 1991, saying that Rose could only be inducted if he was reinstated. Prior to that he was still eligible. The Board conveniently overlooked Speaker and Cobb in making the decision.

And, from what I read, a concerted effort by Johnny Bench, one of the all time PR#CKS of the game, to keep him out.

Apolgies for the language from the demeur TravelGal. Must the antibiotics I'm on. I'm with the put him in crowd and no damn asterisks. One you put one in, you have to put teeny weeny notes next to almost everyone's name. As in, do you put a note next to Sparky Anderson saying that he managed during the years when a player was playing who was gambling so maybe all those wins don't mean as much? :rolleyes:

Stu

11-09-05, 09:49 PM

still haven't addressed my points, stu... :gomer:

Sorry I couldnt get back to you right away, I was at work. :rolleyes:

You say if someone has problems, they should be thrown out of the game but if he was good enough on the field to be in the hall, he should be inducted into the hall of fame. That is rediculous. I have no problem putting references, memorablia, and stories about any player into the hall of fame. But it is my understanding that the individual player being inducted into the hall of fame is on an honor for that player. An honor that only a few select amazing ball players can receive each year. Pete Rose blew his chance at receiving that honor when he signed that plea bargain. He could have faught the allegations saying he gambled on or against his team. He unfortunately chose to do so after he decided to be banned from MLB.

Gangrel

11-10-05, 11:47 AM

Sorry I couldnt get back to you right away, I was at work. :rolleyes:

You say if someone has problems, they should be thrown out of the game but if he was good enough on the field to be in the hall, he should be inducted into the hall of fame. That is rediculous. I have no problem putting references, memorablia, and stories about any player into the hall of fame. But it is my understanding that the individual player being inducted into the hall of fame is on an honor for that player. An honor that only a few select amazing ball players can receive each year. Pete Rose blew his chance at receiving that honor when he signed that plea bargain. He could have faught the allegations saying he gambled on or against his team. He unfortunately chose to do so after he decided to be banned from MLB.

And that takes away from the product he put out on the filed how...? :saywhat:

Stu

11-10-05, 12:39 PM

And that takes away from the product he put out on the filed how...? :saywhat:

So you think that what you do off the field should have no impact on whether or not a person is inducted into the hall. Cool, if a player is good enough, we can allow child molesters into the hall of fame. :shakehead

Gangrel

11-10-05, 12:47 PM

So you think that what you do off the field should have no impact on whether or not a person is inducted into the hall. Cool, if a player is good enough, we can allow child molesters into the hall of fame. :shakehead

an extreme example, sure to get weak-minded individuals everywhere....congratulations! :gomer:

Ty Cobb gambled on baseball. Babe Ruth often played drunk, and from what I have read, he was quite the mean drunk. Johnny Bench was just a general A-hole all around. Are we banning all of them? What about Michael Jordan from the NBA hall of fame?

You spent an awful lot of time earlier trying to say that gambling and doing steroids is the same thing. Now you are trying to say that gambling and child molestation is the same thing. Funny thing is, you twisted the arguments in opposite directions to get to those two conclusions...you ever consider a career in politics? You'd fit in well.

Stu

11-10-05, 01:24 PM

an extreme example, sure to get weak-minded individuals everywhere....congratulations! :gomer:

Ty Cobb gambled on baseball. Babe Ruth often played drunk, and from what I have read, he was quite the mean drunk. Johnny Bench was just a general A-hole all around. Are we banning all of them? What about Michael Jordan from the NBA hall of fame?

You spent an awful lot of time earlier trying to say that gambling and doing steroids is the same thing. Now you are trying to say that gambling and child molestation is the same thing. Funny thing is, you twisted the arguments in opposite directions to get to those two conclusions...you ever consider a career in politics? You'd fit in well.

I'm not twisting anything. You said that actions on the field should be the sole determination of entrance into the baseball hall of fame. You therefore have no problem with rapists, child molesters, murderers and other criminals being elected as long as they were good enough at the game. I was just pointing out the glaring hole in your statement.

As far as steroids, my point there was that steroids are now strictly forbidden by MLB. Therefore, if you take them and are caught, you shouldnt be elected to the hall. Just like gambling on your own team is forbidden, and if you are caught, you shouldn't be elected.

Pardon me for wanting some standards in the hall of fame. I want to be able to look in Cooperstown and see people that were great at the game, and not criminals.

Ty Cobb bet on baseball, super, I don't like him, but he got voted in so hes there. Babe Ruth played drunk, whatever, is that against some MLB rule? Johnny Bench was mean, so?

And did any of these 3 players sign an agreement saying they would be banished from Baseball? No they didn't.

Gangrel

11-10-05, 01:54 PM

I'm not twisting anything. You said that actions on the field should be the sole determination of entrance into the baseball hall of fame. You therefore have no problem with rapists, child molesters, murderers and other criminals being elected as long as they were good enough at the game. I was just pointing out the glaring hole in your statement.

As far as steroids, my point there was that steroids are now strictly forbidden by MLB. Therefore, if you take them and are caught, you shouldnt be elected to the hall. Just like gambling on your own team is forbidden, and if you are caught, you shouldn't be elected.

Pardon me for wanting some standards in the hall of fame. I want to be able to look in Cooperstown and see people that were great at the game, and not criminals.

Ty Cobb bet on baseball, super, I don't like him, but he got voted in so hes there. Babe Ruth played drunk, whatever, is that against some MLB rule? Johnny Bench was mean, so?

And did any of these 3 players sign an agreement saying they would be banished from Baseball? No they didn't.

Steroids are wrong because they effect on-field performance, not because there is a rule against them. Gambling against your own team also has an effect on your on-field performance. Gambling for your own team does not. And to answer your question, rapists and child molesters get jail time, and in some cases the needle. That has no effect on my attitude as to whether or not they wind up in the hall of fame. Their punnishment happens in a 8X10 cell with 3 square meals and possibly a shiv in the back. So be it.

Look in the boxing hall of fame. I have little doubt you will find rapists and child molesters, along with murderers, wife beaters, guys with ties to organized crime, druggies, and plenty of other types there. Doesn't change their records, titles held, or other accomplishments in the ring.

I don't condone criminal behavior. I think such types should be held accountable for their actions. But that doesn't erase their accomplishments from the history books. J. Edgar Hoover liked to dress up in women's clothes. Doesn't change the fact that he made the FBI what it is today.

Andrew Longman

11-10-05, 07:46 PM

Steroids are wrong because they effect on-field performance, not because there is a rule against them. Gambling against your own team also has an effect on your on-field performance. Gambling for your own team does not. And to answer your question, rapists and child molesters get jail time, and in some cases the needle. That has no effect on my attitude as to whether or not they wind up in the hall of fame. Their punnishment happens in a 8X10 cell with 3 square meals and possibly a shiv in the back. So be it.

Look in the boxing hall of fame. I have little doubt you will find rapists and child molesters, along with murderers, wife beaters, guys with ties to organized crime, druggies, and plenty of other types there. Doesn't change their records, titles held, or other accomplishments in the ring.

I don't condone criminal behavior. I think such types should be held accountable for their actions. But that doesn't erase their accomplishments from the history books. J. Edgar Hoover liked to dress up in women's clothes. Doesn't change the fact that he made the FBI what it is today.

I seriously doubt MLB want to look to Boxing as the benchmark for running a professional sport successfully. Get real.

Betting for or against you team makes no difference. Actually, it is cavorting with gamblers that gets any professional athlete in trouble. Look to Alex Karras and Paul Horning. I'll say it again. The league is concerned about any appearance that the outcome on the field was manufactured. Betting on your own team can drive up losses that bookies want repaid with favors. Fans don't know what way an athlete bets, but if the fan knows the player is betting you can be sure if injects some doubts on the his intentions.

You just can't allow it. And when the biggest stars are known to be doing it, there is no way you can look away.

Sorry. I'm with Stu

Gangrel

11-11-05, 11:32 AM

Andrew Longman

11-11-05, 11:43 AM

Except, despite coming to the same conclusion as Stu did, you didn't get there the same way. You got there by following the effects on the integrity of the game. Stu got there by following his moral compass. Important difference.

Hey, if you don't want to look on Joe Lewis, George Foreman, Mohammud Ali, Joe Frazier, Sugar Ray Robinson, Sugar Ray Leonard, et all as important icons of sport, that's your business. I know plenty of sports historians that would beg to differ.

Those are great boxers but they had little to do with how well the sport was run. Boxing is a and always has been a corrupt morass and it is diminshing in popularity as a sport. Compared to the 1950s or even 70s it is nothing. Thank you Don King. I don't think it is an admirable model of sport management.

Gangrel

11-11-05, 12:21 PM

Those are great boxers but they had little to do with how well the sport was run. Boxing is a and always has been a corrupt morass and it is diminshing in popularity as a sport. Compared to the 1950s or even 70s it is nothing. Thank you Don King. I don't think it is an admirable model of sport management.

Again, your opinion, your call...

Stu

11-12-05, 08:44 AM

Except, despite coming to the same conclusion as Stu did, you didn't get there the same way. You got there by following the effects on the integrity of the game. Stu got there by following his moral compass. Important difference.

Hey, if you don't want to look on Joe Lewis, George Foreman, Mohammud Ali, Joe Frazier, Sugar Ray Robinson, Sugar Ray Leonard, et all as important icons of sport, that's your business. I know plenty of sports historians that would beg to differ.

My "moral compass" was only concerned with the integrity of the game. I may have not spelled that out clearly, but thats all I have been concerned with. As Andrew has said, you try to shy away from putting criminals or people that are publicly known to associate with criminals in a place where only the greatest baseball players ever played.

Yes there has been scum who have entered the Hall before Rose's time, although certainly none as public as him. But you shouldn't have to keep making the same mistakes because there was precedent for it.

Gangrel

11-12-05, 10:43 AM

My "moral compass" was only concerned with the integrity of the game. I may have not spelled that out clearly, but thats all I have been concerned with. As Andrew has said, you try to shy away from putting criminals or people that are publicly known to associate with criminals in a place where only the greatest baseball players ever played.

Yes there has been scum who have entered the Hall before Rose's time, although certainly none as public as him. But you shouldn't have to keep making the same mistakes because there was precedent for it.

I disagree when it comes to whether or not this had an effect on the integrity of the game. I think if you were to establish that some bookie DID owe a big debt to a bookie, and he DID throw games as a result, that would be another story.

Unless that is established, this is all grandstanding as far as I am concerned.

meadors

11-12-05, 12:24 PM

Cardbox inducted into Hall of Fame (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051112/ap_on_re_us/toy_hall_of_fame)

Cardboard Box Added to Hall of Fame
Character Unimpeachable

Stu

11-12-05, 12:48 PM

I disagree when it comes to whether or not this had an effect on the integrity of the game. I think if you were to establish that some bookie DID owe a big debt to a bookie, and he DID throw games as a result, that would be another story.

Unless that is established, this is all grandstanding as far as I am concerned.

The game is all about the fans. I am sure there are a great deal of people that were turned away from baseball thanks to Pete Rose. While he was a great hitter in the Majors, since hanging up the bat, he has been a disgrace.

Gangrel

11-12-05, 02:00 PM

The game is all about the fans. I am sure there are a great deal of people that were turned away from baseball thanks to Pete Rose. While he was a great hitter in the Majors, since hanging up the bat, he has been a disgrace.

There are plenty of people turned off by what Pete Rose did. There are likewise plenty of people turned off by MLB stubbornly spending the last decade and a half of teaching him a lesson. There are two sides there.

If MLB is trying to make everyone happy, they might as well quit now, because they'll never see the day. But the guy had over 4000 hits. He hit safely in 44 consecutive games. He did it without the help or artificial muscles of steroids. He didn't gamble against his own team. He didn't throw any games. He didn't sandbag to keep any scores low. Give the man his due. He belongs in the hall.