Pete Rose sycophants

[Questdog]

Originally Posted by slic1149

Pete Rose bet on games. We only have his word, as a confirmed liar, that he never threw a game.

There is no doubt in my mind that Pete never bet on his team to lose and therefore would have no reason to throw a game. Anyone watching him play could tell he was hustling and trying harder to win than anyone else on the field. It is the main reason for his popularity during his playing days.

Besides, one batter and fielder cannot throw a game all by himself. You have to have the pitcher in on any game-fixing schemes.

Most of you anti-Rose guys must not really have much exposure to him outside of the news about the ban. He is genuinely a personable guy and is very smart (though uneducated) and sincerely cares about the game of baseball.

No one is black and white; we are all shades of gray.

[chucksabr]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Now that we have that out of the way, here's the crux of the problem...

Quoted from MLB.com:

The all-time hits leader, 74, was placed on the permanently ineligible list for violating Major League Baseball's strict rule against betting on baseball on Aug. 23, 1989. Subsequently, the Board of Directors of the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum declared that all players on that list would also be ineligible for election.


The bolded sentence is the problem. There is no reason for this act by the HOF Board. It is stupid and hypocritical to keep the all-time leader in hits out of the Hall of Fame for reasons related to his behavior. He can't degrade the Hall of Fame any further than Ty Cobb already has. Manfred does not have to lift the ban to rectify this moronic position. The HOF Board can do it anytime.

But you can, and should, still blame Manfred because he has the power to reinstate Pete Rose, at which point the Hall of Fame would have to put Pete Rose on its ballot. Because the director of the Hall reiterated on television yet again that the Hall implemented the rule to be in concert with Major League Baseball and not confer the honor on players who are declared permanently ineilible. Given the relationship they have with Baseball, and their clear and obvious need to maintain that, theirs is a reasonable position for them to take.

So if the only thing you care about is that Pete Rose go into the Hall of Fame, and nothing else, then as far as you're concerned, Manfred is still the bad guy. He, and no one else, is the only person, within reason, who has the power to clear a path to the Hall for Pete.

[slic1149]

Originally Posted by Questdog

There is no doubt in my mind that Pete never bet on his team to lose and therefore would have no reason to throw a game. Anyone watching him play could tell he was hustling and trying harder to win than anyone else on the field. It is the main reason for his popularity during his playing days.

Besides, one batter and fielder cannot throw a game all by himself. You have to have the pitcher in on any game-fixing schemes.

Most of you anti-Rose guys must not really have much exposure to him outside of the news about the ban. He is genuinely a personable guy and is very smart (though uneducated) and sincerely cares about the game of baseball.

No one is black and white; we are all shades of gray.

I watched Rose from the time he came up as a player, in the mid 60 until he was thrown out of the game in disgrace. I am not going to argue whether he was a great player. He was. Charlie Hustle was great for the game. Pete Rose the gambler was not. Unlike you, I have no secret knowledge about whether he threw a game or not. All I have is his record as a liar about whether he bet on games or not.

No one has even attempted to answer the most basic question concerning Rose and the rules he broke. Should there be a different set of rules for great players when it comes to the only real "death penalty" rule baseball has? If Rose loves the game then he should play by the rules. If he breaks the rules he should be punished. This isn't about his 4,000 some hits. It is about the vastly larger number of the times he lied.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by slic1149

This isn't about his 4,000 some hits. It is about the vastly larger number of the times he lied.

His Hall of Fame case has everything to do with his 4,256 hits and nothing to do with lying.

[chucksabr]

Originally Posted by Orcin

His Hall of Fame case has everything to do with his 4,256 hits and nothing to do with lying.

According to the BBWAA, the election of a former player to the Hall of Fame has to do with much more than just the number of base hits he achieved.

According to Section 5, Voting:

Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

By any objective standard, Pete qualifies on three of these, for sure, but falls well short on two others. The sixth one, sportsmanship, is open to interpretation: is it sportsman-like to break the cardinal rule of baseball repeatedly and remorselessly? That's up to the voter to decide.

So, taking into account the BBWAA's own criteria for election, it's not true that Pete's Hall of Fame case would have everything to do with his 4,256 hits and nothing to do with lying. Rather, his Hall of Fame case would have something to do with his 4,256 hits, and something to do with his lying.

I say "would have", rather than "has", because it is all moot. The Hall of Fame has rendered Pete ineligible for enshrinement due to his permanent ineligibility status in regards to Baseball, because he gambled on games in which he had a duty to perform.

By the way, you could also use this very same Section 5 as a cudgel to deny Hall of Fame enshrinement to Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Rafael Palmeiro, and any other real or imagined steroid user. After all, one could make an excellent case that players who use steroids while employed in the Game demonstrate lack of integrity, lack of character and lack of sportsmanship, and that would be hard to argue against. Of course, the difference between these guys and Rose is that these guys are on the Hall ballot because they are eligible to be, and Pete, by current rules and standing, is not.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Orcin

His Hall of Fame case has everything to do with his 4,256 hits and nothing to do with lying.

Character is a criteria. I don't think it should count, but when in Rome. ... .

[Orcin]

Any argument about character fails at Ty Cobb.

[slic1149]

Originally Posted by slic1149

This isn't about his 4,000 some hits. It is about the vastly larger number of the times he lied.

In retrospect I believe I should amend this to read.

"It isn't about his 4,000 some hits. It is about the amount of times he gambled on games".

The lying was caused by the gambling. I'II risk being pedantic to accurately convey my meaning.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Any argument about character fails at Ty Cobb.

As it does w/Cap Anson & probably a host of others.

Nevertheless, stating that makes your position that mistakes were made in the past, therefore we should repeat them.

[magnet 2.0]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Any argument about character fails at Ty Cobb.

I'd sooner want Cobb out than Rose in. That's an easy one. Got anything else?

[Questdog]

Originally Posted by slic1149

Unlike you, I have no secret knowledge about whether he threw a game or not. All I have is his record as a liar about whether he bet on games or not.

No, you have more evidence than that; you are just choosing to ignore it.

1) No player, other than a pitcher, can impact the game enough to lose it intentionally all by himself.

2) Pete's teams won more games than any other player who ever lived.


Granted #2 is not rock solid evidence, but #1 is. Pete could not have thrown any games without help from his teammates. To assume that he has or even that it is likely that he has is just wishful thinking.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Any argument about character fails at Ty Cobb.

I argued specifically against character. It is the current criteria and is being used to keep unpopular and suspected drug users out.

EDIT:

Until that stops Rose should never be considered.

[Questdog]

Originally Posted by chucksabr

But you can, and should, still blame Manfred because he has the power to reinstate Pete Rose, at which point the Hall of Fame would have to put Pete Rose on its ballot.

This is inane logic.

The commissioner has an obligation to MLB that drove his decision. Reinstating Rose would allow any team to hire him in any capacity they desired. Obviously, that would not be in the best interests of MLB. It is not the commissioner's fault that the Hall of Fame refuses to consider Rose for entry. And to blame him for not neglecting his primary responsibility just to get Rose into the Hall of Fame is ludicrous.

Rose should not be allowed a job in MLB, but keeping him out of the Hall of Fame is ridiculous.

[slic1149]

Originally Posted by Questdog

No, you have more evidence than that; you are just choosing to ignore it.

1) No player, other than a pitcher, can impact the game enough to lose it intentionally all by himself.

2) Pete's teams won more games than any other player who ever lived.


Granted #2 is not rock solid evidence, but #1 is. Pete could not have thrown any games without help from his teammates. To assume that he has or even that it is likely that he has is just wishful thinking.

I simply said I do not know whether Pete Rose ever threw a game. I still don't. It is important to note that Rose is not being denied the Hall of Fame because he threw a game. He is banned because he bet on games. He is not being forgiven because he is non-repentant, and has regularly shown his contempt for the very people he needed to convince he had changed.

His skill as a player cannot be denied. It is truly a sports tragedy that Pete Rose will not have a plaque in the Hall of Fame. However his sins were great. His lies were many. His remorse non existent. If he is allowed into the Hall it would be a sign that rules are made to be broken and an individual player, if talented enough, can be allowed to compromise the integrity of the game. No one player is bigger than the game.

[Questdog]

Originally Posted by RchW

I argued specifically against character. It is the current criteria and is being used to keep unpopular and suspected drug users out.

EDIT:

Until that stops Rose should never be considered.

I don't think character has much to do with steroid users be denied entry to the Hall of Fame. It's the fact that their numbers are inflated by cheating. There has come to be a consensus that this precludes their enshrinement for whatever reason, but I am sure some of the users are stand-up guys otherwise.

And why do Rose and the Steroid Users have to be tied together?

And also, those of you who think Ty Cobb was the worst human that ever lived should read the new biography written about him: "Ty Cobb: A Terrible Beauty" by Charles Leerhsen. It is a rather convincing argument against the hyperbole that has shrouded Cobb's legacy.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Questdog

No, you have more evidence than that; you are just choosing to ignore it.

1) No player, other than a pitcher, can impact the game enough to lose it intentionally all by himself.

2) Pete's teams won more games than any other player who ever lived.


Granted #2 is not rock solid evidence, but #1 is. Pete could not have thrown any games without help from his teammates. To assume that he has or even that it is likely that he has is just wishful thinking.

Folks, correct me if I'm wrong, cause I'm not sure. But doesn't Rose's gambling go back to his days as player-manager?

[Questdog]

Originally Posted by slic1149

I simply said I do not know whether Pete Rose ever threw a game. I still don't.

You also do not know if Tom Seaver ever threw a game and there is as much evidence that Pete threw a game as their is that Tom threw a game (which is none).

But if Pete wanted to throw a game, he would have had to have Tom's help (or some other Red's pitcher) and there is no evidence to suggest he ever got any help and no one involved in the investigation of his gambling has ever suggested that he ever even looked for help, much less got it.

There is evidence that he bet on the Reds to win games; there is no evidence and no one involved in the investigation has ever suggested that he bet on the Reds to lose.

[Questdog]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Folks, correct me if I'm wrong, cause I'm not sure. But doesn't Rose's gambling go back to his days as player-manager?

Yes, and a manager has even less control over throwing a game than a player would.

The best a manager could do (on his own ) is make the worst possible decision every opportunity he had. But Dusty Baker has done that for years and his teams still won some games.....

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Questdog

Yes, and a manager has even less control over throwing a game than a player would.

I know you don't believe that. You're just trolling me now.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Questdog

I don't think character has much to do with steroid users be denied entry to the Hall of Fame. It's the fact that their numbers are inflated by cheating. There has come to be a consensus that this precludes their enshrinement for whatever reason, but I am sure some of the users are stand-up guys otherwise.

And why do Rose and the Steroid Users have to be tied together?

And also, those of you who think Ty Cobb was the worst human that ever lived should read the new biography written about him: "Ty Cobb: A Terrible Beauty" by Charles Leerhsen. It is a rather convincing argument against the hyperbole that has shrouded Cobb's legacy.

Suspected means not guilty. You give Rose every break but use different criteria for others.