Pete Rose sycophants

[Questdog]

Originally Posted by RchW

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

No, I am not.

The two issues have nothing to do with one another and therefore the same measuring stick cannot be used for both, even if you wanted to.

Pete tarnished the image of the game directly, yet did not tarnish the game between the lines at all.

The steroids users did not tarnish the image of the game directly, yet did tarnish the game between the lines. Baseball has tarnished its own image by its laughable enforcement policies.

And as to suspected steroid users versus convicted steroid users, I have not much to say. There are a few players who's records scream out that they were users, but who's guilt has never been confirmed that I would have no problem not voting for, but by and large, unless the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming, I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Edit: And one other thing: Not one of the Steroid Users has been banned from baseball or the Hall of Fame; they are just not getting voted for. That is not the commissioner's fault (or mine). Pete should never have been barred from the Hall of Fame. They should have allowed the voters to decide if his crimes were enough to bar him entry. That would have quelled the pro-Rose camp in the bud (if he was not elected) and would have punished him more in the long run. His notoriety from the ban has helped him earn a pretty good living.

[Questdog]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

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

Why would I not believe that?

Open up OOTP and load an MLB game up and try to lose on purpose. And do it like you'd have to do if you were a real manager throwing a game. You can't just make everyone who gets on base steal until they are thrown out or put all of your fielders out of position and put a hitter in to pitch.

It would be impossible for a manager to intentionally throw a game on his own without the cooperation of any of his players. You could manage poorly and cost your team 5 to 10 wins in a season, but to guarantee that today's game is a loss? Impossible.

[Cobra Mgr]

So the guy who can set the defense, tell you whether to walk a guy or not, what pitch to throw, when to steal, when to swing, who pitches, when to take them out, who to put in to pinch hit, who to pinch hit for, what order to hit in........has an insignificant influence on whether his team wins or not...........And you learned this (my apologies to the creators of this wonderful game) from playing the fictional OOTP........

[Questdog]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

So the guy who can set the defense, tell you whether to walk a guy or not, what pitch to throw, when to steal, when to swing, who pitches, when to take them out, who to put in to pinch hit, who to pinch hit for, what order to hit in........has an insignificant influence on whether his team wins or not...........And you learned this (my apologies to the creators of this wonderful game) from playing the fictional OOTP........

Not insignificant, but not enough to guarantee a loss without making it obvious to everyone what he is doing.

[psd]

Quest - Pete Rose ACCEPTED a lifetime ban in exchange for MLB to halt their investigation into his actions. They complied with his request. Do you think it is perfectly OK for Pete to NOW try to renege on his end of the bargain? How would you feel if MLB still banned Pete but continued their investigation?

[stl jason]

Originally Posted by psd

Quest - Pete Rose ACCEPTED a lifetime ban in exchange for MLB to halt their investigation into his actions. They complied with his request. Do you think it is perfectly OK for Pete to NOW try to renege on his end of the bargain? How would you feel if MLB still banned Pete but continued their investigation?

This.... if the specific agreement was a lifetime ban, then he can be eligible for HOF induction once he's no longer alive. His punishment is he doesn't get to enjoy the accolades of that ceremony.


the really sad part is, all he had to do was not bet on (or against) the Reds. The rule specifically states that any player/etc who bets on games where they don't have a duty to perform only gets a 1 year slap on the wrist. If he had just bet on every other game except Reds games, he would have been inducted decades ago.

[Questdog]

Originally Posted by psd

Quest - Pete Rose ACCEPTED a lifetime ban in exchange for MLB to halt their investigation into his actions. They complied with his request. Do you think it is perfectly OK for Pete to NOW try to renege on his end of the bargain? How would you feel if MLB still banned Pete but continued their investigation?

I have no problem with the lifetime ban on Pete Rose from working in MLB. He should not be allowed to work again for any team. It would be bad for baseball's image if this was allowed. But the ban has nothing to do with him being in the Hall of Fame, except that the directors of the Hall decided that it did.

Why not let the voters decide if it did? You need 75% of the vote to get elected and if 75% of the voters believe he deserved to be enshrined then who cares what the directors' think? If less than 75% believe he deserved the honor then who cares what I think?

Of course, it is too late for that unless they made an exception to the rules, since Pete has been retired too long.

[magnet 2.0]

Originally Posted by Questdog

I have no problem with the lifetime ban on Pete Rose from working in MLB. He should not be allowed to work again for any team. It would be bad for baseball's image if this was allowed. But the ban has nothing to do with him being in the Hall of Fame, except that the directors of the Hall decided that it did.

I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were simply mistaken, but you're too emotionally invested. There's no way you didn't look this up already.

[Questdog]

Originally Posted by magnet 2.0

I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were simply mistaken, but you're too emotionally invested. There's no way you didn't look this up already.

What do you mean that I was mistaken?

Edit: The rule you circled was put in specifically to keep Rose out of the Hall of Fame. It did not exist before his problems came to light.

[magnet 2.0]

It was not put in place specifically for Pete Rose. Sure, his actions brought the discussion on, but he's not the only person on the list.

[Questdog]

Originally Posted by magnet 2.0

It was not put in place specifically for Pete Rose. Sure, his actions brought the discussion on, but he's not the only person on the list.

The rule was made right before he was to appear on the ballot for the first time and he was the only player on the ineligible list who could appear on the ballot.

This rule was made specifically for Rose. Everyone knew it at the time and you should know it now that I have educated you....

Edit: The rule was not needed to keep any other ineligible player out as they had been safely kept out for more than 50 years without the rule. But the Directors of the Hall felt certain Pete would get elected and moved to prevent it.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by magnet 2.0

It was not put in place specifically for Pete Rose.

Sure. They just happened to take up this subject in 1991. At the time, when asked if Rose was the reason the thought of a rule change came up, Hall of Fame President Edward Stack said, "I would say so."

[chucksabr]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Any argument about character fails at Ty Cobb.

Ty Cobb wasn't considered a bad character in 1936.

I think the difference is also that whatever character flaws could be assigned to Ty Cobb were flaws in his off-field behavior which did not impact on Baseball or his participation in it. The character flaws of Pete Rose and any steroid users who could be named definitely did directly impact the game.

I think you'd have a better argument against Cap Anson, whose character flaw definitely did impact the game by keeping players of color out of Organized Baseball for over half a century, and which ******ed the progress of the game significantly.

[chucksabr]

Originally Posted by Questdog

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.

I am talking in practical terms, not political terms.

The Hall of Fame is never going to flip the bird at Baseball by telling them, **** you, we're letting banned players in whether you like it or not. They could, but they won't because they've decided they need to maintain their relationship with Baseball. Technically, they could sever that relationship, but in practical terms, they simply cannot.

Given that, there is only one way today for Pete to be considered for the Hall of Fame: Manfred would need to reinstate him. If Manfred did that, Pete would automatically be considered for Hall enshrinement.

I would agree that politically, that would never happen, and I have said as much perhaps a dozen or more times in this thread. But in practical terms, reinstatement by the Commissioner is Pete's only way in.

So be mad at Manfred, because he's the gatekeeper.

[chucksabr]

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.

I read the Ty Cobb book, and I don't think Leerhsen made a good case to exonerate Ty Cobb at all.

Leerhsen did not uncover any new exculpatory evidence specifically about Ty Cobb. All Leerhsen relied on was circumstantial evidence, such as, "Ty Cobb had relatives who were involved in the abolitionist movement during slavery days, therefore, Ty Cobb could not possibly have been a racist himself"; and his own declarative statements, such as, "The Detroit Free Press reported in 1905 that Ty Cobb beat up a black man on the streets of that city, but I don't think they told the entire story in an honest and complete way, so my conclusion is that Ty Cobb is not a racist."

[slic1149]

Am I the only one who thinks it would be a little counter-intuitive to have a player in the Baseball Hall of Fame who screwed up so bad he was banned from baseball?

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by slic1149

Am I the only one who thinks it would be a little counter-intuitive to have a player in the Baseball Hall of Fame who screwed up so bad he was banned from baseball?

No, have you read the thread? Some people want him in, and some people don't. Does everyone need to have the same opinion?

In their own words, "The Hall of Fame's mission is to preserve the sport's history, honor excellence within the game and make a connection between the generations of people who enjoy baseball."

Based on that mission statement, the all-time leader in one of the game's most basic offensive categories should be in the Hall of Fame. There's nothing in there about "screwing up". There was no prohibition against being banned for gambling either until some people became afraid of putting Rose on the ballot. Joe Jackson was eligible for years, receiving 2 votes as late as 1946 (eight future HoF'ers received only 1 or 2 votes that year).

[Westheim]

Moral and ethics aside, the Hall has a problem, though. The career hits leader is not in it, and the career home run leader might not make it in for a while, either. What kind of Hall is that? The Hall of Second-Best?

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Westheim

Moral and ethics aside, the Hall has a problem, though. The career hits leader is not in it, and the career home run leader might not make it in for a while, either. What kind of Hall is that? The Hall of Second-Best?

A hall that has standards that go beyond numbers on the field. Just because a player runs a sub 4.4/40 doesn't mean he'll make a good teammate. Just because a woman is knockdown gorgeous doesn't mean she is wifey material. Just because a ball player is prolific doesn't mean he's a Hall of Famer.

[Westheim]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

A hall that has standards that go beyond numbers on the field. Just because a player runs a sub 4.4/40 doesn't mean he'll make a good teammate. Just because a woman is knockdown gorgeous doesn't mean she is wifey material. Just because a ball player is prolific doesn't mean he's a Hall of Famer.

Yet it's called Baseball Hall of Fame. Not Hall of Really Nice Baseball Players.