Pete Rose sycophants

[Questdog]

Even the Hall of Fame website says the character part is more about character on the field and not so much off the field.

[Cobra Mgr]

And placing bets on the game has nothing to do with "on the field"................I guess we can't call a criminal police officer a bad cop if he commits crime only when he's off duty.

[Questdog]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

And placing bets on the game has nothing to do with "on the field"................I guess we can't call a criminal police officer a bad cop if he commits crime only when he's off duty.

I bet you aced logic class.....

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Westheim

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

Right but I find the close association of those who want Rose in the HoF but wan't to deny suspected PED users or even some who are just associated with the PED era bizarre.

If as you say it is a Hall of Fame then the infamous of all persuasions should be included.

I get the sense it is being used as the Hall of Double Standards by many of the same people that didn't report what they knew about PED's and the players, managers and team executives who encouraged this activity for their own personal gain and profit in many cases.

There is nothing more insufferable than an ex-smoker I've found. It's a good analogy for all the insufferable prigs suddenly protecting us baseball fans from "gasp" drug use.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Questdog

I bet you aced logic class.....

I'm sure it would be a higher grade than yours.



I just wish Rose supporters would just come out & say what they really feel instead of trying to pretend there has been some kind of miscarriage of justice.

"I want Pete Rose in the Hall just because. I know he committed a violation whose predetermined punishment dictated he would be banned. He should have known better because he saw what happened to other greats like Shoeless Joe. And he plea bargained his own "death sentence" just to keep the embarrassing details hidden cause he knew he was caught dead to rights. But I want an exception to be made in his case. I just like Pete Rose."

If people would just say that, I could deal with it. Then it would be honest. That's what it all comes down to. There is no logic to Rose getting any lesser punishment than he has already received when you compare it to how we go about things in general in society. You violate a code, firm consequences are outlined in that code, precedent has been firmly set in the enforcement of that code, then you know what is coming your way.

Just say how you really feel. "I like Pete & I want him in".

[Questdog]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

I'm sure it would be a higher grade than yours.



I just wish Rose supporters would just come out & say what they really feel instead of trying to pretend there has been some kind of miscarriage of justice.

"I want Pete Rose in the Hall just because. I know he committed a violation whose predetermined punishment dictated he would be banned. He should have known better because he saw what happened to other greats like Shoeless Joe. And he plea bargained his own "death sentence" just to keep the embarrassing details hidden cause he knew he was caught dead to rights. But I want an exception to be made in his case. I just like Pete Rose."

If people would just say that, I could deal with it. Then it would be honest. That's what it all comes down to. There is no logic to Rose getting any lesser punishment than he has already received when you compare it to how we go about things in general in society. You violate a code, firm consequences are outlined in that code, precedent has been firmly set in the enforcement of that code, then you know what is coming your way.

Just say how you really feel. "I like Pete & I want him in".

strong comeback......

You have missed the entirety of my argument for Rose's enshrinement.

1) The ban was NEVER intended to keep Pete from the Hall of Fame; it was to keep Pete from having a job in MLB

2) The Hall of Fame's directors decided on their own that they needed to act to keep Pete out of the Hall and, rather than allowing the writers entrusted with selecting Hall of Famers to do their job and decide if Pete belonged in the Hall of Fame or not, preemptively created a rule just to bar Pete from consideration.

These are facts and not my opinions.

My opinion is that the Directors acted very maliciously in their high-handed tactics. Not to Pete as much as to the HoF Voters, to whom they basically said, "We know best; you cannot be trusted."

ALL problems with the roster of Hall of Famers has stemmed from the Directors not trusting the voters to do their job. And they have botched it badly and they now have a Hall of Fame full of mediocre players.

My opinion on Pete is that what he did was bad and he deserved banning from the game. However, I am convinced that his activities did NOT affect the game on the field (unlike the PED users or Black Sox). Since they did not, and since on that field Pete was the best ball player of his generation, who played the game the way every ball player ought to (all out, but smart and not reckless), he should be in the Hall of Fame.

Pete was not a gifted athlete, a la Cesar Cedeno or Dave Winfield, but he worked harder than anyone in practice and played harder than anyone in games and was smarter than most of the other players on the field. "Charlie Hustle" was originally applied to him as an insult, believe it or not.

Edit: One of my favorite stat facts about Pete is that he hit 30 triples in a single season in the minor leagues. He did not have Willie Wilson's speed.

[magnet 2.0]

Originally Posted by Questdog

strong comeback......

You have missed the entirety of my argument for Rose's enshrinement.

1) The ban was NEVER intended to keep Pete from the Hall of Fame; it was to keep Pete from having a job in MLB

2) The Hall of Fame's directors decided on their own that they needed to act to keep Pete out of the Hall and, rather than allowing the writers entrusted with selecting Hall of Famers to do their job and decide if Pete belonged in the Hall of Fame or not, preemptively created a rule just to bar Pete from consideration.

These are facts and not my opinions.

Going to stop you right here. Rose was the impetus for the discussion in 1991, yes, but he's not the only person on the ineligible list. Quit spinning facts into nonsense if you want to be taken seriously.

[magnet 2.0]

Originally Posted by Questdog

My opinion on Pete is that what he did was bad and he deserved banning from the game. However, I am convinced that his activities did NOT affect the game on the field (unlike the PED users or Black Sox). Since they did not, and since on that field Pete was the best ball player of his generation, who played the game the way every ball player ought to (all out, but smart and not reckless), he should be in the Hall of Fame.

Ray Fosse wants to talk to you about the bolded part.

[Questdog]

Originally Posted by magnet 2.0

Going to stop you right here. Rose was the impetus for the discussion in 1991, yes, but he's not the only person on the ineligible list. Quit spinning facts into nonsense if you want to be taken seriously.

You need to read the thread; we have already settled that point.

He was the only person on the ineligible list that the rule could possibly affect.

Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays were both banned for life before this rule was enacted. They were both already in the Hall of Fame and no one suggested, at the time, that anyone should consider removing their plaques. Both were, however, reinstated by a subsequent commissioner before this rule was enacted.

Shoeless Joe Jackson, though banned from baseball, was never banned from the Hall of Fame. The only reason he is not in the Hall is because the writers did not believe he deserved the honor, though at least 2 did, as he received 2 votes in 2 separate elections.

[magnet 2.0]

Originally Posted by Questdog

You need to read the thread; we have already settled that point.

He was the only person on the ineligible list that the rule could possibly affect.

Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays were both banned for life before this rule was enacted. They were both already in the Hall of Fame and no one suggested, at the time, that anyone should consider removing their plaques. Both were, however, reinstated by a subsequent commissioner before this rule was enacted.

Shoeless Joe Jackson, though banned from baseball, was never banned from the Hall of Fame. The only reason he is not in the Hall is because the writers did not believe he deserved the honor, though at least 2 did, as he received 2 votes in 2 separate elections.

Actually, Shoeless Joe was banned from the HoF with the same rule Rose was. Mantle and Mays were reinstated. How is this so hard to see?

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Questdog

strong comeback......

You have missed the entirety of my argument for Rose's enshrinement.

1) The ban was NEVER intended to keep Pete from the Hall of Fame; it was to keep Pete from having a job in MLB

2) The Hall of Fame's directors decided on their own that they needed to act to keep Pete out of the Hall and, rather than allowing the writers entrusted with selecting Hall of Famers to do their job and decide if Pete belonged in the Hall of Fame or not, preemptively created a rule just to bar Pete from consideration.

I didn't miss a thing buddy. That's why I made my comment about Shoeless Joe. It was an unwritten rule all along that those banned from baseball were not to be inducted. All the directors did was make it official. Which, BTW, is their job. They were given the responsibility to provide guidelines for the induction process.

My opinion is that the Directors acted very maliciously in their high-handed tactics. Not to Pete as much as to the HoF Voters, to whom they basically said, "We know best; you cannot be trusted."

Which was their prerogative. And time has shown they were correct. Just as people are embarrassed about Ty Cobb & Cap Anson, time has shown the BBWAA would have 2nd guessed Pete Rose's induction as more info has come out. In '89 there were a ton of writers who believed Rose when he said he didn't gamble on baseball. Now there are probably a ton of writers who doubt his middle name is Edward.

ALL problems with the roster of Hall of Famers has stemmed from the Directors not trusting the voters to do their job. And they have botched it badly and they now have a Hall of Fame full of mediocre players.

Again, their prerogative & again, proven correct. And I fail to see how the Hall now is full of mediocre players. How in the world did exiling Rose cause the voters to start putting the John Olerud's of baseball into Cooperstown?

My opinion on Pete is that what he did was bad and he deserved banning from the game. However, I am convinced that his activities did NOT affect the game on the field (unlike the PED users or Black Sox). Since they did not, and since on that field Pete was the best ball player of his generation, who played the game the way every ball player ought to (all out, but smart and not reckless), he should be in the Hall of Fame.

And my opinion is that anyone who feels a player manager cannot affect the outcome of a game has lost all ability to reason on the topic. It's a telltale sign of someone desperate to fire his gun when he knows he's out of bullets.

Like I said, just admit it. "I, Questdog, just like Pete Rose & I want exceptions to be made for him so that he can be in the Hall." There is nothing wrong with admitting that. But to behave as if he is some persecuted martyr being railroaded by the ministers of justice is preposterous.

[ihatenames]

Originally Posted by magnet 2.0

Going to stop you right here. Rose was the impetus for the discussion in 1991, yes, but he's not the only person on the ineligible list. Quit spinning facts into nonsense if you want to be taken seriously.

Even the MLB network guys were referring to it as the "Pete Rose rule."

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

I just wish Rose supporters would just come out & say what they really feel instead of trying to pretend there has been some kind of miscarriage of justice.

Since you asked...

Pete Rose is the all-time leader in hits. Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame based on this fact alone. The other side issues raised in this thread are irrelevant to the discussion.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Since you asked...

Pete Rose is the all-time leader in hits. Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame based on this fact alone. The other side issues raised in this thread are irrelevant to the discussion.

Just because a counter is made to your point doesn't make it irrelevant.

It may be irrelevant to affecting your opinion, but it isn't to the discussion.

"I, Orcin, just like Pete Rose & I want exceptions to be made for him so that he can be in the Hall."

[Questdog]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Just because a counter is made to your point doesn't make it irrelevant.

It may be irrelevant to affecting your opinion, but it isn't to the discussion.

"I, Orcin, just like Pete Rose & I want exceptions to be made for him so that he can be in the Hall."

"I, Cobra Meager, just hate Pete Rose & I am happy with the exceptions made for him so that he cannot be in the Hall."

[psd]

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.

There are already some players in there who shouldn't be based upon that criteria. We should actually be removing them, not voting in more of them.The all-time hits leader fails on this criteria & Bonds record is severely tainted due to PED use. And spare me the "never failed a drug test". He admitted to putting things in his body that he "wasn't aware of what they were or what they do." Sure.

And Rose is STILL betting on games today. He was told to change his life and he might be reinstated. He was already told he can't have both betting AND baseball. He made his choice. Now he has to live with that choice.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by psd

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.

There are already some players in there who shouldn't be based upon that criteria. We should actually be removing them, not voting in more of them.The all-time hits leader fails on this criteria & Bonds record is severely tainted due to PED use. And spare me the "never failed a drug test". He admitted to putting things in his body that he "wasn't aware of what they were or what they do." Sure.

And Rose is STILL betting on games today. He was told to change his life and he might be reinstated. He was already told he can't have both betting AND baseball. He made his choice. Now he has to live with that choice.

Plus, he lied. Lied.

That means more than 4,256 hits to me, as much as I love the game. Or maybe because I love the game.

[magnet 2.0]

Originally Posted by Questdog

"I, Cobra Meager, just hate Pete Rose & I am happy with the exceptions made for him so that he cannot be in the Hall."

So he gets to go back on his side of the bargain? Why? Because you like him?

[magnet 2.0]

Originally Posted by ihatenames

Even the MLB network guys were referring to it as the "Pete Rose rule."

So? The people who made the rule say differently.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

It may be irrelevant to affecting your opinion, but it isn't to the discussion.

Your irrelevant opinions may be important to you, but they have no bearing on the issue. The Hall of Fame has a mission. Putting Pete Rose in fits the mission. Keeping him out is inconsistent with the purpose of the entity.