Of Defiling the Hall And Ranking Sins
by baseballgirl on Aug 5, 2009 8:00 AM PDT
Email
PrintThere are times I understand a lifetime ban on baseball for tainting the game by your actions. There are times when I understand the difference between cheating to win--and deliberately losing to ensure a winning bet.
There are also times when I like to pretend that my baseball heroes are all upstanding members of the community, who walk little old ladies across the street, and who set a great example for their fans with their actions and words at all times. Don't get me wrong; some of them certainly are.
But I know better; we ALL know better. If the Hall of Fame was a testament to personal integrity and moral fiber instead of baseball talent, I daresay we'd have some housecleaning to do. So why do we even pretend that it is?
I'm with Hank Aaron:
Pete Rose, who received a lifetime ban 20 years ago for betting on baseball, deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, former home-run king Hank Aaron said.
"I would certainly like to see him in," Aaron said. "He belongs in, really. His career is one that he needs to be right here in the middle of all of this."
I in no way condone any of Pete Rose's actions or the way he has gracelessly handled the subject over the years. Rose committed the grave sin of besmirching baseball itself; and not for the arguably altruistic motive of making baseball better--adding homeruns, power pitching, raising the the game to a new level of talent and excitement--but for selfish gain designed to harm the game. He will never live down this sin, nor should he. But that's entirely beside the point.
Congratulations, Pete Rose; you were a incredible ballplayer who had a flawed personal life. Welcome to the Hall of Fame; you'd be in good company.
There is no arguing with Rose's numbers; he's a shoe-in for the Hall of Fame, and free of the proposed asterisk of the future. If you've been to the Hall, no doubt you have noticed that Rose is conspicuously missing. Despite the fact he's in all of the pictures, all of the big plays and moments, his name is not listed among the Cooperstown elite. And if for no other reason than to complete the baseball timeline, it should be.
Selig's punishment of Rose may be sound in theory, but I think there has to be a way to honor the player, if not the person. How about forgoing the customary ceremony and just placing Rose's plaque up on the wall? How about giving him the backdoor treatment to the Hall, completing that baseball era while giving no recognition to someone who defiled the game? This is assuming, of course, that the induction to the Hall is solely for the player's benefit, and not for the organization or its fans. I can promise you that Rickey's induction and ceremonies this week meant as much to the fans who grew up watching him and the city of Oakland as it did to Rickey himself. I imagine there are still those who wait patiently for that honor to be bestowed on Pete Rose, the ballplayer.
In my non-Hall-of-Fame-voter opinion, putting Rose in is a much easier call than the forthcoming decisions of an era in which we have only seen the tip of iceberg.
The Committee has some decisions to make in the next few years, as the steroid-era players become eligible for the Hall. We've already seen how the borderline McGwire was treated; if his numbers weren't a slam-dunk (and they weren't), he certainly wasn't getting any help.
There will be a time in the not-too-distant future when there will be a player brought before the Committee who is both shoe-in and a proven steroid user. The precedence will be important for the rest of this era. Are they voted in the first time? And do they go in clean, or do you take the asterisk suggestion?
"The Pete Rose thing is different than steroids," Aaron said. "If I had been Pete, I think I would have asked for forgiveness many, many years ago."
Aaron, who hit 755 home runs, also said he believes no performance-enhancing drug can turn a player with minimal talent into a Hall of Famer.
"I certainly don't think you can stand up there and hit a Nolan Ryan 100-mph fastball just because you put something in your arm or took a pill."
On some level, the players entering the Hall from now on will have to be judged by their peers and not by their predecessors, because Aaron is right. Steroids don't make Hall of Fame players; not really. They may elongate a career; they may give an extra edge, they may have helped injuries heal faster and make the player stronger, but I have to believe that a player who is a slam dunk for the Hall would have also been inducted in an era where there were no steroids for anyone. What Aaron doesn't say is that batters not only had to hit the 100-mph fastball from clean players; they also had to compensate for the pitchers who were using, as well. If we can assume that the modern era was thoroughly inundated with steroids (and how can we not?), then the top percent of players should still qualify for the Hall; just as they have since the beginning of baseball.
The Committee can't leave them all out, so they have to start with someone. Who will lead the HOF steroid parade? How do you begin to explain this era of baseball in the Hall of Fame to future baseball fans? Do you think any borderline players associated with steroids will ever get in?
And when will Pete Rose be allowed to go in?
Game tonight is at 7pm. Game thread will open as soon as the lineups are announced.
143 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Great post
Baseball likes to hold itself up as a holier-than-thou institution, but the Hall is already littered with the mistakes of past eras. If it is truly a Hall of Fame, it should enshrine the players who were the most famous, and who shaped the history of the game. Without the disgraces, the history will be incomplete.
Never forget: I am a complete idiot
Agree 100%.
"Bobby Crosby at third is a bit of an adventure. And not like, here’s some hidden treasure, what fun. More like, gah! poison ants!" --alea iacta est
by baseballgirl on Aug 5, 2009 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions
It's the Hall of FAME
It’s what shaped baseball over the years; both good and bad, I think. It’s an honor, true, but it’s also like printing a history book for future generations.
"Bobby Crosby at third is a bit of an adventure. And not like, here’s some hidden treasure, what fun. More like, gah! poison ants!" --alea iacta est
by baseballgirl on Aug 5, 2009 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions
No, it's "The National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum"
The Hall of Fame part is, technically, just the one big room (“The Gallery”) with all the plaques in it. The rest of it is the Museum.
Rose has been excluded from the Hall of Fame. He’s not excluded from the Museum. And the Museum is the part that’s “like printing a history book for future generations.”
You can keep a person out of the HOF without denying their place in the history of baseball. Rose hasn’t been subjected to some kind of Orwellian expunging from the historical record — he’s just being denied an honor.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
It's not an honor. It's about statistics.
People will always know the story of Rose and his name will always be besmirched. There are some very bad individuals already in that room. They’re there because they were the best to play the game, not because of who they were, but how they played. If we go on who they were, there’s a hundred names that should immediately go in and probably a hundred more that should come out.
To say that Pete Rose was not one of the very best to ever play the game insults the logic.
A real Poppy Palace would have a lot more chocolate, and a moat with otters. -Poppy
by Leopold Bloom on Aug 5, 2009 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions
LB, it has nothing to do with Pete Rose being a good or bad person
it has to do with him betting on baseball games that he was managing. Period. Rampant gambling was a big problem for baseball through the first couple decades of the 20th century, and the Black Sox scandal nearly destroyed the two major leagues.
Baseball is rightly very, very anxious about anything that would make fans believe that games were fixed. From what you just said, it sounds like you’d want Rose in the HOF even if it were proven clearly that he had fixed games as a manager. After all, deliberately throwing games as a manager wouldn’t have altered his stats as a player at all.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
They're very, very anxious, and rightfully so.
That is independent of what Rose did as a player.
A real Poppy Palace would have a lot more chocolate, and a moat with otters. -Poppy
by Leopold Bloom on Aug 5, 2009 1:00 PM PDT up reply actions
thats the thing though
Fuck you Bob Geren
by supermarc589 on Aug 5, 2009 1:17 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
thats the thing though
He was betting on his own team to win. Had he been betting against his team then in my opinion all of this would be well deserved.
To me it is different when you bet on your own team because as a manager, it is impossible to fix a game in your favor. As a umpire or referee (Tim Donaguey SP?) there is the opportunity to fix games.
By betting on his team as a manager, I’m my opinion he was showing confidence in his team and their abilities. He did not tamper with the game of baseball itself. If anything he gave himself more motivation to be a good manager and lead his team to victory.
Maybe geren should try it
Fuck you Bob Geren
by supermarc589 on Aug 5, 2009 1:20 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I think he belongs as player
but if you believe that he always bet on his own team then I find that hard to believe. He’s a proven liar. I’ve went through a tumultuous period of life betting and it set me back in life but probably made me a better person today.
A gambler will do anything to win when he’s on a down streak and it would be easy to put in an “Everyday Eddie” but claim that you are trying to win :-)
These ain't your father's A's.
by ohtobe21likehuston on Aug 5, 2009 4:44 PM PDT up reply actions
It ain't the winning.....
it’s the losing.
At any rate, betting for or against your team doesn’t really matter. The fact that you have a bet on them at all will influence your decisions. Sure would have hated to have been a pitcher under Rose no matter which way he bet.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
I hate when people take the word Fame literally.
Because it’s not just about being famous. It’s about the best players who ever played the game.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
Which he was, was he not?
"Bobby Crosby at third is a bit of an adventure. And not like, here’s some hidden treasure, what fun. More like, gah! poison ants!" --alea iacta est
The ban should continue
Comparing steroids to betting is an apples/oranges analogy.
The only way that professional sports maintain credibility and integrity is to crack down hard on those who break the gambling rules. Pete Rose is still an example to current players that if you bet on baseball, you’re totally screwed. And that’s how it should be.
I largely agree
At the very least, an argument for Rose’s admission to the Hall has to acknowledge that his betting on baseball has to be part of the consideration. I’m afraid calling it a question of “personal integrity” or a “flawed personal life” is deeply evasive of what’s going on here. This isn’t a question of Rose’s morals or of baseball’s “purity.” This is a fundamental question of a sport’s integrity.
The argument for putting Rose in the Hall has to be based on a kind of cost-benefit analysis, in which the positive things he did in baseball substantially enough outway the negative things he did to baseball. Perhaps unlike coffee roaster, I think you can make an argument for Rose’s inclusion that takes this form (though, like coffee roaster, I’d probably end up disagreeing with it). But any argument for Rose’s inclusion that proceeds by first proclaiming that gambling ought to have nothing to do with the way we evaluate Pete Rose, the baseball player, profoundly misses the point.
On personal integrity and my view of Rose: When Rose was a player, I always hated him. Pete Rose was always an arrogant a**hole. I hated the whole Charlie Hustle crap (as radio host and baseball fan Jesse Thorn has said, saying a player hustles basically means he’s telegenic and white). I hated the fact that he injured Ray Fosse in an All Star Game. And, yes, I always hated the Big Red Machine. Some of this hatred was rational, much of it wasn’t. That’s sports fandom. But until the whole gambling thing happened, there was no question in my mind that Rose belonged in the Hall of Fame. He may have been an a**hole, but he was clearly one of the greatest ball players of his generation (though also one who waited far too long to retire).
My continuing opposition to Rose going into the Hall rests not on any evaluation of his character, but on a sense of what just punishment is for what he did to baseball. And to convince me otherwise you need to make some sort of alternate argument about how those in the game who gamble on the game should be punished, rather than pretending that this is a conversation about Pete Rose’s character, which, I agree, is irrelevant.
There is no "i" in Teamocil. At least not where you'd think.
by GreenNGoldSooner on Aug 5, 2009 9:36 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Well said. I agree 100%
It is not fair to lump gambling on baseball in with other “character issues.” I think it is important that baseball make this stand. I don’t think the question is why not let him in, but why should you let him in? You don’t see Shoeless Joe in the Hall, even though there is a lot of public sentiment for it.
I personally don’t see why folks go crazy for Rose. He was a good ballplayer, he was a arrogant jerk, he thought he was bigger than the game, he found out otherwise. Let it go.
''I love Billy Beane. The only mistake he has ever made was writing that braggy book about himself, and how he's so good at computers.'' - Ken Tremendous
by fridaynightfan on Aug 5, 2009 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions
Rose is guilty of supreme arrogance.
I think that’s why he’s still being denied HOF entry at this point. It’s beyond dispute that his numbers warrant the HOF. I often think that MLB may let him in, but only if he has the courtesy to die while still eligible for entry from the Veterans committee.
But you know what? I believe his candidacy for the Hall lies exactly where it should at this point. With Selig, and then with the Veterans committee. If they say all is forgiven, then so be it.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
Yeah
Sounds tasteless, but I think he is a shoo-in to the Hall if he dies when eligible.
Is this the real life-
Is this just fantasy-
Caught in a landslide-
No escape from reality-
Well, he would've served his "lifetime" suspension
So why not. But I do believe mention should be made on his HOF plaque of his banishment as well as his player/manager stats. It is an unalterable part of his history.
as someone who actually saw him play
I have to say that he needs to be enshrined, or the hall is a joke. However, I’ve always thought that what would be appropriate would be to put him in WHEN HE DIES.
Though not a highly publicized fact, the greatest manager of his era, John McGraw, certainly bet on games, so Pete wouldn’t be alone, but I don’t think he should be able to profit from or bask in the glory of enshrinement.
Put him in WHEN HE DIES.
by Brian in 317 on Aug 5, 2009 8:29 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
same with Shoeless Joe Jackson...
…you mean he’s been dead for almost 60 years?
hmm…
"Flea Markets aren't just for blind dates anymore!"- The Reverend Billy Lard
by Gaijin_Suketto on Aug 5, 2009 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions
I agree, completely ...
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
A serious question
Did McGraw make his bets before or after the Black Sox scandal? I’d argue a big difference between the two, because since the scandal, it has been an absolute, lifetime banishment if you break it, rule that you don’t bet on the game.
There were allegations
that Speaker and Cobb bet on baseball after the WS scandal, but Landis backed down from investigating those allegations. Seems as though the perks of being a superstar haven’t changed much throughout the years, doesn’t it?
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
Hank Aaron is starting to annoy me.
How the guy can sit and say that steroid and PED users absolutely should NOT be allowed in the Hall despite the fact that he used amphetamines and then turn around and say Pete Rose absolutely SHOULD be allowed in just smacks of “Old Boys Club” mentality.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
Steroids ≠ Amphetamines ≠ Gambling
I really think these are separate issues that demand separate conversations. Though obviously conversations about different PEDs are related to each other, all PEDs are not equivalent: they enhance performance differently, their legal status is different, and the rules of organized baseball concerning their use differs.
I agree, however, that to the extent that amphetamine-era players treat steroid-era players with a holier than thou attitude, they deserve criticism for their hypocrisy.
There is no "i" in Teamocil. At least not where you'd think.
by GreenNGoldSooner on Aug 5, 2009 9:39 AM PDT up reply actions
Nowhere near as bad as calling for the release of the 2003 list
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
I would agree that it shouldn't be released if names hadn't already leaked out...
Now that they seem to be coming out at a few-per-year trickle, I’d rather just have out with all of it and try to move on, otherwise it’ll keep looming over the entire sport’s head for years to come.
That.
Would rather see it released, so everyone can get lost in the shuffle, than to have one by one released.
"Bobby Crosby at third is a bit of an adventure. And not like, here’s some hidden treasure, what fun. More like, gah! poison ants!" --alea iacta est
by baseballgirl on Aug 6, 2009 11:08 AM PDT up reply actions
Out of curiosity...
How do you feel about the names from this list being leaked to the media despite assurance of confidentiality to the players?
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
No go on Rose
Baseball has among it’s many rules one that is of particular significance and importance: No Betting on the game. Ever. For any reason. There is no gray area there. No room for claims of ignorance or innocent fun. Gambling had a detrimental effect on the game back in the early 1900’s culminating in the Black Sox scandal and the rule is in place to eliminate that taint and influence as much as possible. Players are routinely told this and have been for some time now. Rose knew what he was doing, knew the possible consequences of his actions and he doesn’t deserve leniency just because it happened 20 years ago.
The issue is not whether gambling is better or worse than steroid use, or whether Rose is a better or worse human being than others already in the hall (Ty Cobb, etc). These issues are completely irrelevant to the discussion and are only introduced as an attempt to move the argument away from the central issue: Rose broke one of (if not the most) central rules of the game and he paid the penalty.
The only players to whom he should be compared are those that have also gambled. His punishment is consistent with those of others who were found to have gambled on the sport. His case shouldn’t be treated any differently just because he hustled a lot or had a successful playing career.
Personally, I don’t find that Rose’s exclusion diminishes the Hall one bit. There are many, many other great players in the game and their greatness isn’t less just because one player isn’t present.
There is no gravity - the earth just sucks.
by JLeverenz on Aug 5, 2009 8:43 AM PDT reply actions 4 recs
+1,000,000
There is no "i" in Teamocil. At least not where you'd think.
by GreenNGoldSooner on Aug 5, 2009 9:40 AM PDT up reply actions
This is getting ridiculous
The guy didn’t murder anyone. He bet on baseball and he needs to go through some pain to realize the mistakes he has made. I don’t even like him but he’s one of the greatest players of all-time and deserves to be in the HOF.
Selig should put him on probation with clear expecations and a time period and if he fulfills those expectations than he should be allowed in. This country is quite hilarious when you consider some criminals are treated better than people with questionable morals.
It’s certainly not a “right” to be inducted into the HOF but we should all quit acting like we are the Lord our God, Nathan Jessup or the Marine Conduct Code Manual.
These ain't your father's A's.
by ohtobe21likehuston on Aug 5, 2009 10:32 AM PDT reply actions
still my favorite Kiefer moment.
A real Poppy Palace would have a lot more chocolate, and a moat with otters. -Poppy
by Leopold Bloom on Aug 5, 2009 11:12 AM PDT up reply actions
Steroids and the Hall of Fame
Baseball Girl,
I must respectfully disagree with your statement that steroids “don’t make Hall of Fame players.” I have no doubt that a 62nd round draft pick like Mike Piazza used PEDs to enhance his performance and excel in the big leagues. I think without PEDs, Ivan Rodriguez would have been a nice little .280 – .300 hitting catcher with modest power, ala Terry Kennedy or best-case scenario, Ted Simmons, and not the second-coming of Johnny Bench that he became. Mark McGwire, upon his retirement, was universally hailed as a first-ballot Hall of Famer. This is a guy who couldn’t stay on the field in the early 1990s and seemed headed out of baseball. Steroids, in my opinion, allowed him to miraculously heal up and get back on the baseball diamond, where he went from a 30-40 HR guy (very good, but not epic) to a 70 HR guy and seemingly a Hall of Famer. Without these drugs, what kind of career numbers would we be looking at for these guys? I mean guys like Pudge Rodriguez, McGwire, and Piazza, not to mention the former banjo-hitting first baseman Rafael Palmeiro who became a 500 HR guy once he was introduced to the BALCO brew. I think there is plenty of evidence to indicate that PEDs took average-to-good ballplayers to HOF levels for a period of time.
Randy Velarde.
A real Poppy Palace would have a lot more chocolate, and a moat with otters. -Poppy
by Leopold Bloom on Aug 5, 2009 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions
Here's a question....
if roids are capable of doing that for a human being, why should we be so adamantly opposed to their use? At what point do we tell someone that yes, there exists compounds that will allow your body to recover so that you may pursue your chosen vocation. Except you can’t have them because we would rather see you out of the game than a given a chance to recover and pursue your career? Does it change things if a Dr. says so and so should take roids as a matter of medicinal necessity?
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
VERY interesting point.
"Bobby Crosby at third is a bit of an adventure. And not like, here’s some hidden treasure, what fun. More like, gah! poison ants!" --alea iacta est
by baseballgirl on Aug 5, 2009 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm not necessarily adamantly opposed to their use in principle.
But they were illegal and against the rules of baseball during the (first?) steroid era.
This meant that they were a) cheating and b) resulted in an uneven playing field that benefited players willing to teach.
This isn’t abot the absolute good or bad of steroids. This is about how they operated in the recently passed “steroid era.”
If players, owners, and the US government agree that steroids are ok, none of this would be true. But that wasn’t the case.
There is no "i" in Teamocil. At least not where you'd think.
by GreenNGoldSooner on Aug 5, 2009 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions
erp....."an uneven playing field that benefitted those willing to CHEAT"
interesting typo there…..
There is no "i" in Teamocil. At least not where you'd think.
by GreenNGoldSooner on Aug 5, 2009 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions
Well,
to be fair, ethics are what seem to be up for debate here. So why not question everyone’s, including ours as fans? Is it ethical to withhold medicinal compounds that may benefit a person?
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
denial of care...
"Flea Markets aren't just for blind dates anymore!"- The Reverend Billy Lard
by Gaijin_Suketto on Aug 5, 2009 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions
Nope. In my opinion, ethics are not the issue at all.
In the case of steroids, the issue is whether someone cheated to get the statistics on which they are being judged. The problem isn’t ethical. It’s how to evaluate their performance. Players who chose not to cheat were at a disadvantage. Using steroids is not inherently cheating. But in the 1990s and 2000s it was.
Nor is ethics the issue in the case of Rose and gambling. The problem with gambling is the threat it poses to the integrity of the game, not what it says about Pete Rose as a person.
There is no "i" in Teamocil. At least not where you'd think.
by GreenNGoldSooner on Aug 5, 2009 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions
Great point
It’s hard to make the argument that roid heads should simply be measured against their peers when being considered for the HOF when so many of their peers were NOT on the juice. So Big Mac hit a bunch of long bombs against roidless pitchers who would have otherwise struck him out if not for him being on the super sauce. Way to go Mac! He was always such an embittered fraud. He used to say nasty things about the fans here in Oakland when he was with the A’s — little digs all the time — and towards the city as well. And he couldn’t help himself from dumping even more on Oakland when he left for St. Louis, and he always made it a point to say how much better the fans were in St. Loo. Now, the coward won’t even leave his gated community in Orange County, according to media reports. And the fans that once loved him in St. Loo don’t ever want to see him around there again. He is persona non grata in that city. His whole career is a forgettable joke.
You mean like coritsone shots?
Now I’m certainly not a doctor, but I find it hard to believe that someone who’s hurt something can just take a shot and be totally cured. Where do you draw the line between allowing somebody to play through pain at the risk of further injury and the use of steroids to improve overall play, recover faster, etc. I mean, if you’re at the point where you’re getting a cortisone injection, you’re clearly at the point where you shouldn’t be aggressively moving that joint, right?
In my opinion, I think that the social youth-consequences (i.e. kids copying what they see on tv), was far worse when Curt Shilling pitched with a bleeding ankle and was subsequently cast as a (small)nation’s hero. The kids inclined to do steroids in high school are going to do them regardless of what professional baseball players are doing. When you celebrate someone getting hurt and toughing it out anyway, that’s when “normal” high school kids are really going to screw up stuff.
So why aren't cortisone shots
deemed PED’s? What’s the difference? They both allow you to compete at a level you normally wouldn’t be able to otherwise.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
I think this is a big grey area, too
What exactly is the difference between “unethical cheating through artificial enhancement of abilities” and “fantastic new medical procedure that helps you overcome physical ailments.”
How would you categorize Lasik surgery, for instance?
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
Or eye exercises that interfere with God's will for your eyesight.
Not that they appear to have helped Jack Cust anyway.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Rise of the Machines I say.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
This is an argument to have when baseball sets its rules....
….preferably through negotiation between owners and the MLBPA. It’s not an argument to have once something is illegal.
Steroids are semi-tricky because the commissioners office more or less unilaterally declared them against the rules in 1991, then did nothing to enforce them. Meanwhile, the owners were trying to break the union, so no effort was made to come to an agreement with the players about enforcement.
I do think, however, that once steroids were made an illegal drug under federal law (just prior to the Fay Vincent memo concerning steroids), they fell under the admittedly rather ineffective drug policy that he MLBPA and Kuhn (I think) had negotiated in the 1980s.
There is no "i" in Teamocil. At least not where you'd think.
by GreenNGoldSooner on Aug 5, 2009 7:43 PM PDT up reply actions
I think that steroids take marginal players and let them make the big leages
They take good players and make them great…and I acknowledge that they do allow for longer careers and quicker healing time…
…but don’t you have to assume at some point that a considerable number of players were using at the time? And maybe the real numbers for Piazza or McGwire weren’t as good as they are now, but compared to the rest of the league if they weren’t using as well, they’d still be HOF numbers?
I don’t think you can measure real numbers in this league. It’s like grading on a curve; take away all the A’s, and everyone gets better.
"Bobby Crosby at third is a bit of an adventure. And not like, here’s some hidden treasure, what fun. More like, gah! poison ants!" --alea iacta est
by baseballgirl on Aug 5, 2009 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions
And I don't mean Piazza and McGwire had HOF numbers...they were just the example
"Bobby Crosby at third is a bit of an adventure. And not like, here’s some hidden treasure, what fun. More like, gah! poison ants!" --alea iacta est
by baseballgirl on Aug 5, 2009 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions
There's going to be a LOT of interesting votes taken in the next 5 years, for sure.
"Bobby Crosby at third is a bit of an adventure. And not like, here’s some hidden treasure, what fun. More like, gah! poison ants!" --alea iacta est
by baseballgirl on Aug 5, 2009 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions
Do you think Big Mac gets in eventually?
This is a tough call as I think without PED’s he still would have had 480-500 HR’s. Before all this madness that get’s him in right there.
PREPAREDNESS_Because those goddamn zombies aren’t going to kill themselves
I'm tempted to agree with Bill James's recent article...
…in which he predicted that, ultimately, the Hall is likely going to either include all the steroid era players or exclude all of them….and the former outcome is likelier than the latter outcome.
(I disagree with James, however, that this would be a good thing.)
As for whether McGwire would otherwise belong in the Hall….tough call really. McGwire was probably an early steroid user, so I think McGwire-without-steroids is really hard to predict. On the other hand, though I’m seemingly alone in this belief, I feel that those who used steroids before the federal and baseball bans on them in 1991 were not cheating, while those who used them after were. So I’m more ok with McGwire’s earlier use of ’roids than I am with his later use of them.
But let’s, for the sake of argument, say that roidless Big Mac hits 480-500 HR and doesn’t break Maris’s record. Would that get him in the Hall? I think if he surpassed 500 HRs, it would have been hard to keep him out. But if he had ended his career at 480, our imaginary roidless McGwire would have been a pretty good candidate to be the new HR champ among non-HOF players. Compare his career to such non-HOFers as Andre Dawson (432 HRs) and Dave Kingman (442 HRs).
On the other hand, Dave Winfield made it into the Hall with 465 HRs and stats that our imaginary roidless McGwire might have matched (real-world roid-filled McGwire had a twenty point lower BA, but a significantly higher OPS and OBP than Winfield did).
There is no "i" in Teamocil. At least not where you'd think.
by GreenNGoldSooner on Aug 5, 2009 2:43 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't think a roidless Big Mac
would have been able to stay on the field long enough to reach 350 HRs, let alone 500. In my opinion, it was the Balco super sauce that allowed him to beat back injuries during his hey-day in the mid-to-late 1990s.
Excellent point!
And there are dozens upon dozens of players who might have been HOFers had they not been severely hampered by injury (Smoky Joe Wood, anybody?).
There is no "i" in Teamocil. At least not where you'd think.
by GreenNGoldSooner on Aug 5, 2009 3:01 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes, so many HOF talents whose careers were sidetracked by injury
Guys like Eric Davis, who for a time looked like the second coming of Willie Mays. Bob Horner who was a home run machine right out of the gate for the Braves and didn’t even play in the minor leagues. And then there were the guys whose careers took a dive in their early-to-mid 30s, guys like Fred Lynn, Dale Murphy and many others. What if those guys had taken the super sauce? They were all better ballplayers than the one-dimensional Big Mac.
Good point to all of the above.
"Bobby Crosby at third is a bit of an adventure. And not like, here’s some hidden treasure, what fun. More like, gah! poison ants!" --alea iacta est
I honestly don't think he will
I don’t know if he should, but if I had to guess if he will, I’d say no. He had the HR’s, but the rest of his career, including quite a few seasons, wasn’t as standout as you would expect. He is a marginal player, who did one thing really, really well. That one thing would have given him enough high-profile interest to get him in, except he got nailed with the scandal. I think that’s enough to keep him out.
"Bobby Crosby at third is a bit of an adventure. And not like, here’s some hidden treasure, what fun. More like, gah! poison ants!" --alea iacta est
Scratch marginal player...
…replace with marginal Hall of Fame caliber player. He IS borderline, but had one standout stat.
"Bobby Crosby at third is a bit of an adventure. And not like, here’s some hidden treasure, what fun. More like, gah! poison ants!" --alea iacta est
This Is A Tough One
On one hand, the guy came up with more base hits than anyone who has ever played the game (4256). I seriously doubt anyone will ever break that record.
On the other hand he violated a code of conduct that is stressed to every person involved with the game each and every season. Rose knew exactly what he was doing and his arrogance is what got him busted.
The biggest problem that Rose has is that he has pissed off many of the writers who vote. Combine that with resistance from many HOF’ers and the odd of him making it in while he is still alive isn’t good.
I would have to say let him in. His play on the field is what qualifies him. I do feel that he should never have any official role in the game for his gambling.
I dont see it as an either or
I think all players/managers/coaches who gamble on the game should be banned. If it were Pete Rose Jr. the punnishment should be the same. To say otherwise is changing the rules for gambling, which shouldn’t be done.
Gambling is different
Like others who have said it better than I could, Rose deserves a lifelong ban. Unless you think gambling is bad, unless you are a great player.
Posthumus induction as Brian 317 suggests is interesting though.
I've always thought he'd be in posthumously.
Like right after. I guess I was looking for a way Selig could honor the fans and the organization without honoring him. Looking at all of the Rickey stuff, it’s a BIG DEAL, and as a baseball player, he certainly should be in there. If not for himself, than for his team…which would make sense after he dies.
"Bobby Crosby at third is a bit of an adventure. And not like, here’s some hidden treasure, what fun. More like, gah! poison ants!" --alea iacta est
by baseballgirl on Aug 5, 2009 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions
Let Pete Rose in as a player
Pete Rose would never make it into the Hall as a Manager, which is when his gambling came to light. He shouldn’t be allowed to have a role in the Majors. However unless there is proof he gambled as a player, he should be allowed in as a player.
Allowing Bowie Kuhn into the Hall degraded it pretty badly.
by pyrfan on Aug 5, 2009 11:26 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Conditional Clearance only...
The same would apply to Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, A-Roid, and etc…
"I occasionally post and offer little to no insight here on AN except emotional ramblings. Do I remind you of someone? (Nomar maybe?)"
100% agree
As a player he should be in.
PREPAREDNESS_Because those goddamn zombies aren’t going to kill themselves
Geren's Old Vet Lineup with one youngster
CF Davis
3B Kennedy
LF Hairston
DH Giambi/ or Cust
1B Garciaparra
C Powell
2B Ellis
SS Crosby
RF Patterson
"I occasionally post and offer little to no insight here on AN except emotional ramblings. Do I remind you of someone? (Nomar maybe?)"
Okay, let's say your argument is that he's to be the poster child
for what happens if you bet on baseball. Is there a single person who doesn’t know what happened to him?
I think he’s a HUGE gaping a-hole (McNulty-level) and if he deserved to be kicked some more, I’d say so.
Consider what we’ve done to him:
1. We’ve denied him any kind of participation for two decades in the one thing he loved so frickin’ much, he became about as good as anyone at it..
2. We will continue to deny him any interaction with the game for the rest of his life.
3. We’ve humiliated him on a global level.
4. We’ve swung his corpse in front of every single person who might be tempted to bet on baseball, which will not change if we induct him. We can still show the consequences of his actions. We still show Joe Jackson’s consequences. In reflection, denying Joe Jackson the HoF is a punishment, but the real punishment was being banned from the game. Same with Rose.
Allowing Pete Rose into the HoF does not change any of this. It just acknowledges that, as a player, he was one of the best, which is undeniably true.
And for the record, Judge Landis’ ruling/rule/whatever was designed to save the national pastime at a period where it was fairly evident that a good chunk of a team colluded to lose the World Series. I understand that betting’s betting, but betting on your team to win games seems drastically different than actively losing. As Eddie Izzard says, we have different degrees of murder—why not degrees of betting?
He’s done his penance. It’s time to let him out the dungeon.
A real Poppy Palace would have a lot more chocolate, and a moat with otters. -Poppy
Betting to lose or win is like insider trading
you are using your influence and private knowledge regarding a game to get special influence.
Saying you were only betting for them to win is just a rationalization. Does it mean you were throwing earlier games, or sandbagging to depress the odds artificially? Do your bookies get special inside knowledge too? It’s a sticky mess.
But me, I’m more pissed that AIG / Enron / Worldcom / etc executives get to sip their champagne, rather than rot in jail.
So there's no difference in your mind between
betting on your team to win and actively participating in throwing the World Series? There’s no degree of difference whatsoever?
A real Poppy Palace would have a lot more chocolate, and a moat with otters. -Poppy
by Leopold Bloom on Aug 5, 2009 12:08 PM PDT up reply actions
There is a difference
a difference of degree, but not of kind.
A manager could sandbag his team, making it look like they were lousy, then bet on the days he was not deliberately sabotaging things.
I understand the argument.
I know what you’re saying.
What i’m saying is there’s a difference between the two things.
A real Poppy Palace would have a lot more chocolate, and a moat with otters. -Poppy
by Leopold Bloom on Aug 5, 2009 12:58 PM PDT up reply actions
There is a difference between the two....
….but not as far as the interests—or clearly stated and enforced—rules of organized baseball are concerned.
Again, this isn’t an argument about how bad a person Pete Rose is or isn’t. I agree. Had he bet against his team, he would be a worse person. But despite what Rose apologists want to make this argument about, it really isn’t about Pete Rose’s ethics. It’s about the (perfectly reasonable) rules of baseball and Pete Rose’s open violation of them.
There is no "i" in Teamocil. At least not where you'd think.
by GreenNGoldSooner on Aug 5, 2009 2:19 PM PDT up reply actions
You had me til your parethetical qualifier.
A real Poppy Palace would have a lot more chocolate, and a moat with otters. -Poppy
by Leopold Bloom on Aug 5, 2009 5:34 PM PDT up reply actions
Would you let him in if he'd been deliberately throwing games as a manager?
If not, why not? Wouldn’t he still be “one of the best” as a player?
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
I would let him in if he were guilty of manslaughter.
I would let him in if he were a convicted drug trafficker. I would let him in if he were a vile human being and once publicly beat up a man with no arms.
His punishment is a lifetime ban from baseball ,which has been and will continue to be enforced. He was one of the best to play the game. He deserves to be in the HoF, and to deny him that based on morality is incongruous with what it is. It is illogical. You can continue to make “What if the killer killed your wife” arguments all you want. It is illogical.
A real Poppy Palace would have a lot more chocolate, and a moat with otters. -Poppy
by Leopold Bloom on Aug 5, 2009 1:06 PM PDT up reply actions
None of those have to do with baseball
I’m perfectly happy to limit the HOF discussion to stuff relating to baseball.
I don’t think it makes sense to say that once a guy retires as a player, nothing he ever does again while a part of baseball has anything to do with the HOF.
So I’m not asking what you’d do if he’d committed some transgression completely outside the world of baseball.
I’m asking what you’d do if he had conspired to throw his team’s games while he was a manager. Or what if he’d, I dunno, paid someone to break the legs of a star player on an opposing team?
Neither of those is, legally speaking, as bad as killing someone, obviously. But they both have to do with his actions as a part of baseball. And I think that makes them absolutely fair game for consideration WRT the HOF. It’s not “illogical” for baseball to refuse to honor people whose deliberate actions amount to efforts to destroy baseball as a legitimate enterprise. In fact, it’s kind of illogical for them to agree to honor someone who acted like that.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
Well, we're going to have to agree to disagree then.
It is not an honor. It’s a recognition that you were one of the game’s best players. If it was an honor, then, by all means, take morality into consideration. But it’s not, as clearly demonstrated by the lack thereof in several inductees, and the outstanding moral character by several denied. They are keeping him out based strictly on his morality, and I think it’s extremely illogical.
A real Poppy Palace would have a lot more chocolate, and a moat with otters. -Poppy
by Leopold Bloom on Aug 5, 2009 1:26 PM PDT up reply actions
So your answer
is that if Rose had been found to have thrown Reds’ games as a manager, or to have paid a hit-man to break Fernando Valenzuela’s legs, you’d still favor putting him in the HOF. Do I have that right? What if he’d done those things while he was still a player? Do you think that the great players on the Black Sox should be in the HOF?
AFAIK, the HOF has no written guidelines defining what a HOFer is or should be. One item of the Museum’s Mission Statement is, “Honoring, by enshrinement, those individuals who had exceptional careers, and recognizing others for their significant achievements.” But that’s pretty vague — what do “exceptional” and “career” actually encompass? Rose and Shoeless Joe are out because they’re on MLB’s ineligible list, and being on that list DQs you from the HOF.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
Ooops.
You left your straw man here.
I’d vote him in if he lit babies on fire and tossed them out his window.
A real Poppy Palace would have a lot more chocolate, and a moat with otters. -Poppy
by Leopold Bloom on Aug 5, 2009 2:01 PM PDT up reply actions
reductio ad absurdum =/= strawman.
You:
“It’s not an honor. It’s about statistics.”
“It is not an honor. It’s a recognition that you were one of the game’s best players.”
Throwing games and putting hits out on other players have nothing to do with statistics or how good a player someone is. They do, however, have to do with one’s overall contribution to the game in their role as participants in baseball as an enterprise (once again, your counterexample completely ignores the distinction I’ve repeatedly described between baseball-related behavior and non-baseball-related behavior).
I think it’s legitimate to consider an individual’s overall contribution to the game as a factor in the HOF decision. Your statements so far seem to indicate that you think they should play no role at all. I’m trying to find out if I understand that correctly.
And if you just don’t want to deal with the reductio ad absurdum for some reason, could you answer my question about the Black Sox? Because it seems to me that the standards you’ve articulated would make it wrong to exclude a great player just because he threw a World Series, too.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
Exactly: it's not about ethics, it's about overall contribution to the game.
As I say way upthread, I’m always frustrated by the insistence of those who want Rose in the Hall that any consideration of gambling concerns “ethics” or “off-the-field stuff.” No. Considering Rose’s gambling as a manager is part of a consideration of his contribution to baseball.
I think one could make an argument that his positive contributions as a player so outweigh his negative contributions as a gambler that he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. I don’t agree with this argument, but I’d be willing to be convinced (though such an argument would also need to consider how baseball would have to reorient its approach to gambling in general, because Rose’s current penalty reflects that general approach).
But none of those arguing in favor of Rose’s inclusion seem to take any real measure of the threat that gambling potentially poses to organized sports. And arguments that don’t aren’t really very serious in my book.
There is no "i" in Teamocil. At least not where you'd think.
by GreenNGoldSooner on Aug 5, 2009 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions
You know, this is why I don't engage in these discussions.
You’re a much smarter man than me and I truly humbled before your intellectual prowess. I admit you are right and I am wrong. You are all that is good and plentiful while I am merely an open sore upon the ass of the world. I bow before you.
Now don’t talk to me any more.
A real Poppy Palace would have a lot more chocolate, and a moat with otters. -Poppy
by Leopold Bloom on Aug 5, 2009 5:42 PM PDT up reply actions
I agree with this post SO much.
It’s perfect.
"Bobby Crosby at third is a bit of an adventure. And not like, here’s some hidden treasure, what fun. More like, gah! poison ants!" --alea iacta est
My position is simple ...
A lifetime ban is a lifetime ban … it expires when the player’s life does.
Shoeless Joe should be in. Pete Rose should have to wait a few more years.
Their baseball achievements should be enshrined and the history remembered. They do not deserve the personal glory.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
I agree
Shoeless Joe was talked into the scheme by other members of the team, he was a very naive fellow. But when it came to crunch time he could not do it, heck he could not even read or write. He played well in the series. He got kicked out in his prime so who knows what he would have done for a carrer. Heck, he might have got more hits than Cobb, and or Rose. But we will never know, should he be in? I think so, he suffered more than the rest. Rose? as much as I want to say yes, I just can’t do it.
Stomp,em, stomp the piss out of em.Then pound the budweiser after the game. Joe Schultz Seattle Piolts Mgr 1969
by billyball1981 on Aug 5, 2009 2:36 PM PDT up reply actions
I can get behind this.
Rose should be in, and I’m fine if it happens posthumously.
"Bobby Crosby at third is a bit of an adventure. And not like, here’s some hidden treasure, what fun. More like, gah! poison ants!" --alea iacta est
Pete should NOT be let in
For the simple fact of those glasses he is wearing in the picture with bbg’s post!
I miss Eric Plunk
Damn, you beat me to it ...
I scrolled through 60 posts to see if anyone else had noticed it … and here you were, second from the bottom. LOL
Those glasses are horrible! And, yes, if a grown man is seen wearing ‘em it ought to eliminate him from anything but the circus. What the hell is he thinking? Oh man, those are bad … it’s like a train wreck – I want to turn away but I can’t.
The second reason he should be eliminated from consideration is because he’s talking on his cell phone during a ball game! The only thing worse would be a picture of him doing the wave while talking on his cell phone.
Conclusion? Pete Rose is a dork – always has been. Helluva ballplayer, king-sized clown. He’d be the first guy to get up at the podium in Cooperstown and ask Stan Musial to “pull my finger”.
I needed a team so I wouldn’t turn into one of the eighty million pink hat-wearing Bud Light-drinking mulleted idiots at Fenway.
the sequined cap is almost as bad as the glasses
by coffee roaster on Aug 5, 2009 2:57 PM PDT up reply actions
When I saw that pic
I thought we were talking about letting Elton John into the Hall of Fame
The glare was not practiced. I would get into the game situations, and when that happens, there comes a level of concentration that most can only imagine but can never achieve. You become what you are doing, and that is what you see on my face. -Dave Stewart
by Hegenberger Road on Aug 5, 2009 3:15 PM PDT up reply actions
LOL!
QOTM
"Bobby Crosby at third is a bit of an adventure. And not like, here’s some hidden treasure, what fun. More like, gah! poison ants!" --alea iacta est
I didn't notice the sequined hat ...
THIS MAN IS A DISASTER. I guarantee you he has about 7 gold chains on under that shirt … not to mention he still has the same, tired bowl-cut he’s had since 1972.
I needed a team so I wouldn’t turn into one of the eighty million pink hat-wearing Bud Light-drinking mulleted idiots at Fenway.
It's a new one called "Bartolo"
and it smells vaguely of despair, with just a hint of pastrami.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I think that's ostrich skin with quils, not sequins.....
….but hard to tell without seeing a larger image.
There is no "i" in Teamocil. At least not where you'd think.
by GreenNGoldSooner on Aug 5, 2009 7:47 PM PDT up reply actions
Alox
Your hypothetical steroids question is valid, and I think you are thinking along the same lines as BIll James, who recently wrote that a less risky form steroids will some day be as commonplace in society as aspirin. But the steroids these guys currently take have serious long term health ramifications. Asking why a ballplayer shouldn’t be allowed to take modern-day steroids to make them stronger and recover quicker, is also like asking why they shouldn’t be allowed to take cocaine to improve their energy and level of alertness. In both cases the answer is the same: because it’s illegal and bad for your friggin’ health!
All drugs can be abused.
Opiates, Cocoa extracts, etc. have legitimate medicinal qualities, despite their current street cousins nefarious connotations.
Why aren’t they prescribed as a matter of routine if all of these things are true? Here in the west, aren’t we all about enhancing the quality of life through the practice of medicine?
I’d love to hear someone with a medical background expound on possible legitimate uses for the juice. It’s an interesting question.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!!! NEVER!!!!
There is only one unbreakable rule in baseball, and Pete Rose broke it, then lied about it for decades before semi-admitting to it.
YOU DO NOT BET ON BASEBALL!! PERIOD!!!
Enough on this loser!
S&BP > Mile High Mules
1. Ty Cobb was a miserable, horrific person who called an african american man the n-word then stabbed him. That, my friends, is infinitely worse than betting on baseball no matter what.
2. The HOF has besmirched itself by being bullied into putting Phil Rizzuto in (read Bill James book about the HOF) and the nonsense that Jim Rice, a player who was a decent hitter in an extreme hitters park (duh) and absolutely pathetic everywhere else in as well.
3. Pete Rose shouldnt be allowed to manage or coach a team ever again, but banning him from the HOF was completely ridiculous in the first place and if the commissioner hadn’t died Im sure he would have lightened up and let him back in.
4. The Black Sox need to be in as well. Shoeless Joe was incredible, and needs a plaque. Put a note on it about why he wasnt allowed to finish his career, but up until that point his career was absolutelt HOF-worthy.
Id love the HOF to be completely re-evaluated and have less players in than it has. Like is Bruce Sutter really a HOFer? Really??? It keeps lowering its bar to the point where its become a total joke and as much as Id like to care about it, I just cant anymore.
Good points.
If Ty Cobb is in, then the morality card is out the window. This is about baseball as a player. And like it or not, Pete Rose, before all of the scandal, was a baseball player who played well enough to earn his spot in history.
"Bobby Crosby at third is a bit of an adventure. And not like, here’s some hidden treasure, what fun. More like, gah! poison ants!" --alea iacta est
Who exactly is arguing about morality here?
There is no “morality card,” BBG. There’s a “breaking a clear, longstanding rule that is designed to prevent participants from utterly destroying the integrity of the game” card.
This is about baseball as a player. And like it or not, Pete Rose, before all of the scandal, was a baseball player who played well enough to earn his spot in history.
I’ll ask you the same questions I’ve been asking LB (who hasn’t really answered yet): is there literally nothing that Rose could have done as a manager that would have made you oppose his being put in the HOF? If he’d bet against the team he was managing and then deliberately tried to lose games in order to win bets? If he’d hired goons to break opponents’ legs?
For that matter, what if he’d thrown games as a player? It wouldn’t change the fact that he retired as the all-time hits leader. By your standard, wouldn’t he still deserve to be enshrined?
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
(that's because you're so much smarter than me, you've backed me into an intellectual corner)
(sweetie)
A real Poppy Palace would have a lot more chocolate, and a moat with otters. -Poppy
by Leopold Bloom on Aug 5, 2009 5:44 PM PDT up reply actions
(you know I'm just doing this for the make-up you-know-what)
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
No, there is literally nothing that Rose could have done as a manager
to make me think differently.
YES, the thrown games as a player matters to me.
My point all along has been that when Pete Rose quit playing, his career stood on its own as a baseball player career that deserved to be in the Hall. Period.
Nothing he did after that could touch it, IMO.
If his whole career was tainted by throwing games, etc, I think that’s an entirely different question. I’m not arguing for players who throw games. I am arguing that Pete Rose the player is different than the later Pete Rose the manager who destroyed his name and kept himself out of the Hall of Fame. I don’t disagree with the ban, but I still feel that the player Pete Rose should be in.
"Bobby Crosby at third is a bit of an adventure. And not like, here’s some hidden treasure, what fun. More like, gah! poison ants!" --alea iacta est
Ty Cobb is an amazing
specimen. That guy managed to get prosecuted twice for assaulting black citizens, and if I’m not mistaken, one of those prosecutorial endeavors occurred in the Southern United States. All of this at the turn of the last century when civil rights were non existent. To boot, he was found guilty at least once if I recall correctly. Obviously, the DA was not a Tigers fan.
What a true SOB he must have been. And a helluva a ballplayer. A very tortured soul who ultimately paid a heavy price for being such a foul human being.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
We all know Cobb was a real asshole during his playing days, but to his credit
(maybe guilt / regret played a part) he righted a lot of wrongs late in his life, such as:
Donating millions of dollars to the state of Georgia’s educational system (not chump change either—25% of his ridiculously large estate).
Cobb Memorial Hospital and setting up the Ty Cobb Healthcare network.
Also lobbied hard late in life for the induction of longtime teammate and bitter rival Sam Crawford into the HoF, after years of personal distaste for each other.
Also, who knows really knows the details, maybe the aforementioned stabbing was in self-defense. Point is, IMHO it seems like Ty Cobb’s moral issues can be somewhat understood, if not excused, especially when looking at his life as a whole (his father being killed by his mother, etc.). He claims to have played hard because he never wanted to let his father down. With that came a real grizzly bear attitude.
Just my $0.02, but it seems like he just had a big chip on his shoulder, one big enough to fuel one of the greatest careers in MLB history.
witty remark
what do you mean “no one really knows the details”? these were court-judged actual things, you can look it up on any one of 10,000 sites about it, they will all read something like this:
“A racist, Cobb once slapped a black elevator operator for being “uppity.” When a black night watchman intervened, Cobb pulled out a knife and stabbed him. (The matter was later settled out of court.) On another occasion he climbed into the stands and savagely beat a spectator who had called him a “half-nigger.”
I cannot believe you just tried to make a feel-good ty cobb point. he was a piece of garbage and it sucks he was so good at baseball.
Ty Cobb was a lot of things...
And one of them was a product of his times. His racial attitudes were probably extreme, even for his day. I don’t think the race baiting issue is all it would appear to be on the surface. While surely guaranteed to offend The Peach, I think his reaction was more along the lines of rage at being publicly ridiculed. The dude was flat nuts. His superheated “racism” was more a function of an overwhelming mental psychosis that drove him to extremes. I don’t think anyone here would defend Cobb the man, but Cobb the ballplayer was a marvel. No doubt that was also related to demons that drove him so relentlessly.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
I wasn't trying to make a feel good point about Ty Cobb,
just pointing out the fact that later in life, he seemed to try and right the ship. Like I said, it could’ve been regret or depression or loneliness or most likely guilt driving him batty, but he did do a lot of good with his life after baseball.
I’m not defending his actions by any means. He alienated everyone in his life, obviously he was a shitty person, but he did make some things right.
And just because you quote a wikipedia page doesn’t really bring to light the details of the situation. Yeah he probably called a black elevator operator “uppity” but who knows what really went on after that to necessitate the pulling of a knife. Of course, he could’ve just been a raging racist with a penchant for violence, but, just like a lot of other conflicting details of his life, we can’t say for sure.
Like I said, I’m not defending anything he ever did. He tried to do good later in life, that was my main point.
witty remark
Favorite word :-)
"Bobby Crosby at third is a bit of an adventure. And not like, here’s some hidden treasure, what fun. More like, gah! poison ants!" --alea iacta est
Did Pete Rose ever bet on baseball while he was a player?
If not, then IMO he should be in the Hall of Fame as a player. As a manager, no. As a person, no. He is so obviously a Hall of Fame caliber baseball player; being in the Hall of Fame isn’t an endorsement of your behavior.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Why would it matter if he'd bet on the game as a player?
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
Because all I care about in evaluating a player
is what they did as a player. If Dusty Baker were in the Hall of Fame, and as a manager he suddenly began running over puppies, taking “illegal co-schizandra” for better brain power, and betting on games, I personally wouldn’t care as regarded his “HOF as a player” standing. But I’m probably in the minority in having always thought it was a crock that Rose wasn’t in the HOF.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
But with all the hits and everything, "he's obviously a HOF-caliber baseball player"
How does that all get thrown out the window because he deliberately couldn’t get to a few grounders or flailed at some pitches out of the strike zone in a couple of games he had arranged to throw for money? He still accomplished all the amazing things he did, and was still obviously a HOF caliber player.
That being said, I understand drawing a line between record as a player and record as a manager. But I think it would be pretty bizarre for someone to be involved as a manager in a huge betting scandal one year, and then get enshrined into the HOF a year later.
Last thing is to remember why we’re in this situation to begin with: Rose is on MLB’s ineligible list, and the HOF has a rule that people on that list can’t be inducted. Now, Rose pretty much unquestionably belongs on that list — the dude was betting on games he was involved in, and it’s perfectly reasonable for MLB to forbid him to work for one of their teams again. So he’s staying on the list. So what rule exactly would the HOF devise to allow induction of people on that list, as long as it was their actions after retirement that put them there?
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
I guess it comes down to what the Hall of Fame is supposed to mean and reflect
I always interpreted it as only reflecting baseball player achievement and so the only non playing based factor that seems relevant to me is PEDs — and those only because they can directly affect, in a cheating manner, the “playing achievement” itself.
Now if baseball wishes to make the Hall of Fame reflective of some combination of player achievement and “representing the game with honor,” that’s absolutely fine and then I’m fine with keeping Rose out — it’s just different from the way I’ve interpreted/understood it. And in that case, baseball should make this really clear to fans — and perhaps should also keep out the known bigots, drunk drivers, and wife-beaters, as well as the bettors.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
In retrospect, it might have been a good idea
for the HOF to define the standards for inducting someone. It could have cleared up a whole lot of confusion.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
I think that's the key
It’s not clearly the “Hall of Honor” nor is it clearly the “Hall of Great Player.” It’s kind of the “Hall of You deserve to be enshrined because you did a lot of great baseball-related things and didn’t do certain horrible things.”
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Well, at least they didn't call it "The Hall of Most Valuable Players"
That would probably have been even less clear.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
"certain horrible things"
We know Pete broke the one clear rule. Got it. Crystal clear. Shouldn’t there have been, um, more than one rule?
I'm here to talk about the past.
Does it say, clearly, that
“If you bet on baseball you are not eligible for the Hall of Fame”? If so, then fine — if you want to get into the Hall of Fame, that’s a rule not to break. I imagine, however, that it doesn’t say that in the HOF parameters. Assuming there even are any.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Parameters
3. Eligible Candidates — Candidates to be eligible must meet the following requirements:
1. A baseball player must have been active as a player in the Major Leagues at some time during a period beginning twenty (20) years before and ending five (5) years prior to election.
2. Player must have played in each of ten (10) Major League championship seasons, some part of which must have been within the period described in 3 (A).
3. Player shall have ceased to be an active player in the Major Leagues at least five (5) calendar years preceding the election but may be otherwise connected with baseball.
4. In case of the death of an active player or a player who has been retired for less than five (5) full years, a candidate who is otherwise eligible shall be eligible in the next regular election held at least six (6) months after the date of death or after the end of the five (5) year period, whichever occurs first.
5. Any player on Baseball’s ineligible list shall not be an eligible candidate.
One more rule for voting:
6. Automatic Elections: No automatic elections based on performances such as a batting average of .400 or more for one (1) year, pitching a perfect game or similar outstanding achievement shall be permitted.
That’s it! Rose is ineligible under 3.5. But it’s clearly none of the HOFs business how someone gets on the MLB ineligible list. That’s MLB’s problem, I suppose.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
Now I'm more confused:
Player must have played in each of ten (10) Major League championship seasons.
Every player in the HOF has played in each of 10 Major League championship seasons?
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
"Championship season" is just a highfulutin' way of saying "season"
There is no "i" in Teamocil. At least not where you'd think.
by GreenNGoldSooner on Aug 5, 2009 7:50 PM PDT up reply actions
Is that from the Bob Geren school of
“We’re all champions every year — ice cream for everyone!!!”?
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Of course Rule 5 was basically just created...
…to make the Black Sox scandal players ineligible.
I think the way you let Rose in is you change Rule 5 and admit Shoeless Joe as well.
There is no "i" in Teamocil. At least not where you'd think.
by GreenNGoldSooner on Aug 5, 2009 7:51 PM PDT up reply actions
Oh is that what it is?
I always just assumed Shoeless Joe was ineligible on the basis of
No Shoes
No Shirt
No Service!
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I'm with you 100%
Pete Rose THE PLAYER ended when he was done playing. His career should absolutely be evaluated on those measures alone. Nothing else after that seems relevant to me with regards to getting into the Hall. Now…giving him a ceremony, letting him have his moment of glory; that’s all debatable, but an entirely different point to whether he should or shouldn’t be in the hall, IMO.
"Bobby Crosby at third is a bit of an adventure. And not like, here’s some hidden treasure, what fun. More like, gah! poison ants!" --alea iacta est
I was thinking along those same lines.
But then I saw that Rose was a player-manager for a period of time. Not sure how much it matters, if at all, just putting it out there.
I'm here to talk about the past.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
