All you see on sports casts now are the betting odds, it’s everywhere…let him in
Wow…from the article…
“ Rose had admitted he continues to bet on baseball, which has plagued him and his reinstatement hopes, but the Reds will open a BetMGM sportsbook in Great American Ball Park next year.”
How mlb can reconcile this in their brain is beyond me
Look a little deeper at Pete Rose. It’s hardly the gambling that keeps him out…that was just the reason that he AGREED TO when he was put out to pasture AND accepted his lifetime ban.
I am torn when it comes to Rose. I am from Columbus and my Dad and I loved the guy, but when he repeatedly lied it made us rethink our stance. I wonder if he understood all of the ramifications when he agreed to the lifetime ban? Did he understand it included the HOF?
I think it's fair to say that if you looked a little deeper at all of the current HOF's you could uncover some dirt on about 10% of them.
Pete Rose did just about everything the right way on the field and just about everything the wrong way off of it. However, he blurred the lines between the two - no one else - and he has lied too many times to believe anything he says at this point.
The lies just kept going and going, and almost everyone knew he was guilty.
Rose knew exactly what he was agreeing to.
Do a little research if you want to find out what kind of disgusting deviant he was.
Should I do internet research? I will take a hard pass. I do not have the time to go down some weird, internet wormhole and then have to try to decide what is real and what isn't.
Don't bother. You don't want to know the truth.
It's not "internet research" it's the Dowd Report. When Rose found out what was in it, he couldn't wait to agree to a lifetime ban, as long as the report wasn't published.
It's not about wanting to know the truth, it's I just don't care enough about Rose anymore.
IMHO it's always messy when people go online to judge/summarize someone as a "disgusting deviant" after they read a report.
No, what's messy is when 50 (or so) year old men are having sex with borderline minor girls.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
As I've mentioned before, Pete being reinstated into MLB and getting HOF eligibility, as the GI Joe PSA's would say, is only "half the battle". He's still gotta get 75% just like everyone else.
All you see on sports casts now are the betting odds, it’s everywhere…let him in
Wow…from the article…
“ Rose had admitted he continues to bet on baseball, which has plagued him and his reinstatement hopes, but the Reds will open a BetMGM sportsbook in Great American Ball Park next year.”
How mlb can reconcile this in their brain is beyond me
Look a little deeper at Pete Rose. It’s hardly the gambling that keeps him out…that was just the reason that he AGREED TO when he was put out to pasture AND accepted his lifetime ban.
I am torn when it comes to Rose. I am from Columbus and my Dad and I loved the guy, but when he repeatedly lied it made us rethink our stance. I wonder if he understood all of the ramifications when he agreed to the lifetime ban? Did he understand it included the HOF?
I think it's fair to say that if you looked a little deeper at all of the current HOF's you could uncover some dirt on about 10% of them.
Pete Rose did just about everything the right way on the field and just about everything the wrong way off of it. However, he blurred the lines between the two - no one else - and he has lied too many times to believe anything he says at this point.
The lies just kept going and going, and almost everyone knew he was guilty.
Rose knew exactly what he was agreeing to.
Do a little research if you want to find out what kind of disgusting deviant he was.
Should I do internet research? I will take a hard pass. I do not have the time to go down some weird, internet wormhole and then have to try to decide what is real and what isn't.
Don't bother. You don't want to know the truth.
It's not "internet research" it's the Dowd Report. When Rose found out what was in it, he couldn't wait to agree to a lifetime ban, as long as the report wasn't published.
This is 100% correct. Dowd was also close to proving that Rose bet AGAINST the Reds while managing, too.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
All you see on sports casts now are the betting odds, it’s everywhere…let him in
Wow…from the article…
“ Rose had admitted he continues to bet on baseball, which has plagued him and his reinstatement hopes, but the Reds will open a BetMGM sportsbook in Great American Ball Park next year.”
How mlb can reconcile this in their brain is beyond me
Look a little deeper at Pete Rose. It’s hardly the gambling that keeps him out…that was just the reason that he AGREED TO when he was put out to pasture AND accepted his lifetime ban.
I am torn when it comes to Rose. I am from Columbus and my Dad and I loved the guy, but when he repeatedly lied it made us rethink our stance. I wonder if he understood all of the ramifications when he agreed to the lifetime ban? Did he understand it included the HOF?
I think it's fair to say that if you looked a little deeper at all of the current HOF's you could uncover some dirt on about 10% of them.
Pete Rose did just about everything the right way on the field and just about everything the wrong way off of it. However, he blurred the lines between the two - no one else - and he has lied too many times to believe anything he says at this point.
The lies just kept going and going, and almost everyone knew he was guilty.
Rose knew exactly what he was agreeing to.
Do a little research if you want to find out what kind of disgusting deviant he was.
Should I do internet research? I will take a hard pass. I do not have the time to go down some weird, internet wormhole and then have to try to decide what is real and what isn't.
Don't bother. You don't want to know the truth.
It's not "internet research" it's the Dowd Report. When Rose found out what was in it, he couldn't wait to agree to a lifetime ban, as long as the report wasn't published.
This is 100% correct. Dowd was also close to proving that Rose bet AGAINST the Reds while managing, too.
@nj1980 said:
Im gonna have to agree that this is absurd considering Bonds and Rose are not in.
There are very good reasons why Bonds nor Rose are in the HOF and it has nothing to do with their play on the field. It's not as if we are saying Scott Rolen is a better ball player than Barry Bonds because he got in. There are very specific reasons why Bonds and Rose have to buy a ticket just like we do.
Of course Bonds used PED's, as did Bagwell, Biggio, Papi. But, since none of them failed a MLB drug test - it's wrong to put some in the Hall and others not.
If Barry was kind to the press and ended his career with 630 HR's he would probably be elected.
@balco758 said:
Bonds never failed a MLB drug test.
Of course Bonds used PED's, as did Bagwell, Biggio, Papi. But, since none of them failed a MLB drug test - it's wrong to put some in the Hall and others not.
If Barry was kind to the press and ended his career with 630 HR's he would probably be elected.
It's just sad that in the modern world we live in you have to be nice to the Press to increase your odds at the HOF! What a joke! Are the older members that make up the HOF holding grudges?
I will never take the HOF seriously until Bonds and Clemens are included.
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
Buster Posey is a 1,000% first-ballot lock. I'm surprised this is even a question. 7 AS appearances, a ROY award, an MVP, a batting title and - what locks it up for him - 3 WS championships. He also has that good guy persona going for him, which, like it or not, matters to many of the voters. There's also never been any whispers about PEDs with Posey. He's a shoo-in,
"My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
@balco758 said:
Bonds never failed a MLB drug test.
Of course Bonds used PED's, as did Bagwell, Biggio, Papi. But, since none of them failed a MLB drug test - it's wrong to put some in the Hall and others not.
If Barry was kind to the press and ended his career with 630 HR's he would probably be elected.
I was pretty sure Ortiz did fail a test.
Can we please admit that Rose wasn't nearly as good as the top "special circumstances" players who are excluded, those being Bonds, Clemens, and Rodriguez?
When I said the following - "There are very good reasons why Bonds nor Rose are in the HOF and it has nothing to do with their play on the field"..... I should have been more clear as to what I believe should happen....
I was explaining why they are not in the hall (from voters perspective) and not whether or not they should be. The reasons are not because of their play on the field. However, my firm belief is that they SHOULD BE IN the HOF.
To be more consise -
The reason they are not in - voters felt they cheated or gambled.
What do I think should happen - the voters SHOULD look at their play on the field and they should be first ballot HOFers.
This includes -
Shoeless Joe Jackson
Pete Rose
Roger Clemens
Barry Bonds
Mark McGwire
Sammy Sosa
Rafael Palmeiro
Alex Rodriguez
Manny Ramirez
Curt Schilling
I may be missing a few, but those are names I could think of that should be in.
@frankhardy said:
When I said the following - "There are very good reasons why Bonds nor Rose are in the HOF and it has nothing to do with their play on the field"..... I should have been more clear as to what I believe should happen....
I was explaining why they are not in the hall (from voters perspective) and not whether or not they should be. The reasons are not because of their play on the field. However, my firm belief is that they SHOULD BE IN the HOF.
To be more consise -
The reason they are not in - voters felt they cheated or gambled.
What do I think should happen - the voters SHOULD look at their play on the field and they should be first ballot HOFers.
This includes -
Shoeless Joe Jackson
Pete Rose
Roger Clemens
Barry Bonds
Mark McGwire
Sammy Sosa
Rafael Palmeiro
Alex Rodriguez
Manny Ramirez
Curt Schilling
I may be missing a few, but those are names I could think of that should be in.
Shane,
Just for sake of clarity in the thread - and since it bears repeating - Pete Rose agreed to his lifetime ban from baseball and by being placed on that banned list he forfeited all future Hall of Fame eligibility.
It was not the voters who kept him out. There was never an opportunity for Pete Rose to make it to Cooperstown and this was by his own choice. Since he played his last game as a player in 1986 and agreed to his lifetime ban in 1989, he never appeared on a single HOF ballot.
Two years later, he is convicted of tax evasion and sent to prison for failing to report his earnings from sports autograph and memorabilia shows, speaking engagements and, rather ironically, gambling winnings.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
The Hall of Fame changed its rules two years after Rose agreed to the lifetime ban to exclude those on the banned list from consideration. When Rose agreed he did not know it would preclude him from the Hall.
@1951WheatiesPremium I actually knew that he was never on a ballot but forgot momentarily in my post. Thanks for the clarification.
@graygator I did not realize that. So, it looks like when he agreed to the lifetime ban in baseball, how could he have known that it would also include a HOF ban?
All of that being said, Pete Rose should be in the HOF. He should never be allowed to participate in any official MLB capacity, but he should be in the HOF.
I think Rose gets in the Hall after he passes. They just don't want anything to do with him or have him around because of his gambling on games he participated.
@frankhardy said:
When I said the following - "There are very good reasons why Bonds nor Rose are in the HOF and it has nothing to do with their play on the field"..... I should have been more clear as to what I believe should happen....
I was explaining why they are not in the hall (from voters perspective) and not whether or not they should be. The reasons are not because of their play on the field. However, my firm belief is that they SHOULD BE IN the HOF.
To be more consise -
The reason they are not in - voters felt they cheated or gambled.
What do I think should happen - the voters SHOULD look at their play on the field and they should be first ballot HOFers.
This includes -
Shoeless Joe Jackson
Pete Rose
Roger Clemens
Barry Bonds
Mark McGwire
Sammy Sosa
Rafael Palmeiro
Alex Rodriguez
Manny Ramirez
Curt Schilling
I may be missing a few, but those are names I could think of that should be in.
You know, I don't agree with your whole list, but I can't really add anyone to it. I mean Cobb and Speaker had that gambling scandal, but their enshrinement wasn't even slowed down. Hal Chase either threw so many games that it looks as though he wasn't anything special, or he was much worse than his reputation.
It's beyond passing strange that there wasn't a single player on the fields of MLB from 1921 to 1962 who isn't in the HoF due to off field action.
It's beyond passing strange that there wasn't a single player on the fields of MLB from 1921 to 1962 who isn't in the HoF due to off field action.
Other than Curt Schilling who isn't in the HOF due to off field action? Joe Jackson, Pete Rose, and the steroid mutants are all not in the HOF because of what they did involving games in which they were on the field. It's in part a semantic point, but it's an important one. Joe Jackson is not banned because he stood to gain from what some other team did. Pete Rose is not banned for betting on Tigers games. Taterhead, King of the Mutants, is not being ignored because he roided up to play softball after he had retired.
Schilling, on the other hand, is not in the HOF because he is insufficiently woke and for no other reason. That he is not in the HOF is almost as sickening - almost - as the thought of a HOF that includes Jackson, Rose, or Taterhead. Better 100 more Jack Morrisses and Harold Baineses get in than any one of those three.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
What is so hypocritical is how the Hall of Fame has Rose's memorabilia showing. I get that it's just the "Museum" part of the Hall, but it's still a joke. The Museum should refuse to showcase him, but they know the Rose fiasco brings them business.
What if Curt Schilling had been inducted and then made his controversial comments? Would he have been removed? If not, then he absolutely belongs in the HOF regardless of what he said.
I mean, is it just a timing thing? Say something bad during voting years and you're banned, say the same thing after you're in and it's perfectly OK.
@Browns1981 said:
I think there is enough evidence to show Shoeless Joe probably wasn’t clued in to the scandal. He belongs in he hall. It’s been over 100 years.
On the contrary, the evidence is that he, at the very least, knew all about it.
I read the messages a lot but rarely post, and almost never get involved in the "who should be in the HOF" discussions...BUT, I wonder how those with strong opinions view the Astros scandal. Verlander, Altuve and Bregman (not sure if on-field production makes or will make all of them HOF worthy), but based on some of the opinions I read here, shouldn't they be excluded from the HOF based on the on-field cheating scandal?
It's beyond passing strange that there wasn't a single player on the fields of MLB from 1921 to 1962 who isn't in the HoF due to off field action.
Other than Curt Schilling who isn't in the HOF due to off field action? Joe Jackson, Pete Rose, and the steroid mutants are all not in the HOF because of what they did involving games in which they were on the field. It's in part a semantic point, but it's an important one. Joe Jackson is not banned because he stood to gain from what some other team did. Pete Rose is not banned for betting on Tigers games. Taterhead, King of the Mutants, is not being ignored because he roided up to play softball after he had retired.
Schilling, on the other hand, is not in the HOF because he is insufficiently woke and for no other reason. That he is not in the HOF is almost as sickening - almost - as the thought of a HOF that includes Jackson, Rose, or Taterhead. Better 100 more Jack Morrisses and Harold Baineses get in than any one of those three.
I can accept this position, though I disagree. It's not, though that we're arguing whether Jackson must be excluded even though Eddie Cicotte is already in, and I can certainly see Rose in the same light. But for Bonds et al., I think we need to see them in the light of players who cheated to improve their results. But here's the thing; the HoF is littered with players who are known or suspected with great grounds to have done the same. No doubt, for example, that Perry cheated, and the only questions about Ford relate to whether he can be trusted when he says that he only cheated to hang on at the end of his career and if it matters. As far as PEDs are concerned, despite the Commissioner's "pardon", there can be no doubt that Ortiz used PEDs (the Boston Globe's justification for his inclusion was embarrassingly amusing), and a lot of reason to presume that Piazza, Bagwell, Ryan, and Ivan Rodriguez did as well (I'm sure I'm leaving other players out and that some readers would like to argue that these didn't). My point is simply that if lesser players (Ortiz, Perry) cheated to get into the HoF, then how can we possibly exclude the likes of Clemens, Bonds, and Alex Rodriguez.
@dallasactuary said:
Schilling, on the other hand, is not in the HOF because he is insufficiently woke and for no other reason. That he is not in the HOF is almost as sickening - almost - as the thought of a HOF that includes Jackson, Rose, or Taterhead. Better 100 more Jack Morrisses and Harold Baineses get in than any one of those three.
Does anyone think if Ruth or Cobb played in todays environment they wouldn’t have been run out by some pretty crazy stuff they were able to get away with back then….no doubt they prob took “a little something extra from a doctor buddy to get a pep in the step” back then and lord knows the socially questionable (by todays standards) things they were prob all involved in…
@dallasactuary said:
Schilling, on the other hand, is not in the HOF because he is insufficiently woke and for no other reason. That he is not in the HOF is almost as sickening - almost - as the thought of a HOF that includes Jackson, Rose, or Taterhead. Better 100 more Jack Morrisses and Harold Baineses get in than any one of those three.
Does anyone think if Ruth or Cobb played in todays environment they wouldn’t have been run out by some pretty crazy stuff they were able to get away with back then….no doubt they prob took “a little something extra from a doctor buddy to get a pep in the step” back then and lord knows the socially questionable (by todays standards) things they were prob all involved in…
As long as we're going to play the IF game, IF Bonds played back in the Ruth/Cobb era, he wouldn't have had access to the drugs he had when he played. He would have been a great player, but he wouldn't have hit nearly as many HR.
IF Ruth had been able to get them, he has 1,500 HR.
I am sick and tired of speculation like this. There's no way of knowing what would have happened.
Rose as a player/manager bet on baseball. This is as far as it needs to go, he's out.
Bonds admitted using steroids and CONTINUED to do so while being able to mask his test results. He's also out.
In addition, this doesn't even REMOTELY compare to guys like Ford and Perry who threw a doctored ball a few times a game. The steroid boys were benefitting from their form of cheating 100% of the time.
You don't give shoplifters the death penalty, there are different levels of breaking the rules, and different levels of punishment.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@dallasactuary said:
Schilling, on the other hand, is not in the HOF because he is insufficiently woke and for no other reason. That he is not in the HOF is almost as sickening - almost - as the thought of a HOF that includes Jackson, Rose, or Taterhead. Better 100 more Jack Morrisses and Harold Baineses get in than any one of those three.
Does anyone think if Ruth or Cobb played in todays environment they wouldn’t have been run out by some pretty crazy stuff they were able to get away with back then….no doubt they prob took “a little something extra from a doctor buddy to get a pep in the step” back then and lord knows the socially questionable (by todays standards) things they were prob all involved in…
As long as we're going to play the IF game, IF Bonds played back in the Ruth/Cobb era, he wouldn't have had access to the drugs he had when he played. He would have been a great player, but he wouldn't have hit nearly as many HR.
IF Ruth had been able to get them, he has 1,500 HR.
I am sick and tired of speculation like this. There's no way of knowing what would have happened.
Rose as a player/manager bet on baseball. This is as far as it needs to go, he's out.
Bonds admitted using steroids and CONTINUED to do so while being able to mask his test results. He's also out.
In addition, this doesn't even REMOTELY compare to guys like Ford and Perry who threw a doctored ball a few times a game. The steroid boys were benefitting from their form of cheating 100% of the time.
You don't give shoplifters the death penalty, there are different levels of breaking the rules, and different levels of punishment.
IF Bonds played in the Ruth/Cobb era he wouldn't have been allowed to play with them.
How much did it sale for is one of the funniest and most ignorant things I've ever heard.
@dallasactuary said:
Schilling, on the other hand, is not in the HOF because he is insufficiently woke and for no other reason. That he is not in the HOF is almost as sickening - almost - as the thought of a HOF that includes Jackson, Rose, or Taterhead. Better 100 more Jack Morrisses and Harold Baineses get in than any one of those three.
Does anyone think if Ruth or Cobb played in todays environment they wouldn’t have been run out by some pretty crazy stuff they were able to get away with back then….no doubt they prob took “a little something extra from a doctor buddy to get a pep in the step” back then and lord knows the socially questionable (by todays standards) things they were prob all involved in…
As long as we're going to play the IF game, IF Bonds played back in the Ruth/Cobb era, he wouldn't have had access to the drugs he had when he played. He would have been a great player, but he wouldn't have hit nearly as many HR.
IF Ruth had been able to get them, he has 1,500 HR.
I am sick and tired of speculation like this. There's no way of knowing what would have happened.
Rose as a player/manager bet on baseball. This is as far as it needs to go, he's out.
Bonds admitted using steroids and CONTINUED to do so while being able to mask his test results. He's also out.
In addition, this doesn't even REMOTELY compare to guys like Ford and Perry who threw a doctored ball a few times a game. The steroid boys were benefitting from their form of cheating 100% of the time.
You don't give shoplifters the death penalty, there are different levels of breaking the rules, and different levels of punishment.
IF Bonds played in the Ruth/Cobb era he wouldn't have been allowed to play with them.
I realize that.
It's the IF GAME.
Ruth couldn't play in today's game,........... he's dead.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@dallasactuary said:
Schilling, on the other hand, is not in the HOF because he is insufficiently woke and for no other reason. That he is not in the HOF is almost as sickening - almost - as the thought of a HOF that includes Jackson, Rose, or Taterhead. Better 100 more Jack Morrisses and Harold Baineses get in than any one of those three.
Does anyone think if Ruth or Cobb played in todays environment they wouldn’t have been run out by some pretty crazy stuff they were able to get away with back then….no doubt they prob took “a little something extra from a doctor buddy to get a pep in the step” back then and lord knows the socially questionable (by todays standards) things they were prob all involved in…
As long as we're going to play the IF game, IF Bonds played back in the Ruth/Cobb era, he wouldn't have had access to the drugs he had when he played. He would have been a great player, but he wouldn't have hit nearly as many HR.
IF Ruth had been able to get them, he has 1,500 HR.
I am sick and tired of speculation like this. There's no way of knowing what would have happened.
Rose as a player/manager bet on baseball. This is as far as it needs to go, he's out.
Bonds admitted using steroids and CONTINUED to do so while being able to mask his test results. He's also out.
In addition, this doesn't even REMOTELY compare to guys like Ford and Perry who threw a doctored ball a few times a game. The steroid boys were benefitting from their form of cheating 100% of the time.
You don't give shoplifters the death penalty, there are different levels of breaking the rules, and different levels of punishment.
IF Bonds played in the Ruth/Cobb era he wouldn't have been allowed to play with them.
I realize that.
It's the IF GAME.
Ruth couldn't play in today's game,........... he's dead.
You’ve obviously never seen Weekend at Bernie’s ….
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@dallasactuary said:
Schilling, on the other hand, is not in the HOF because he is insufficiently woke and for no other reason. That he is not in the HOF is almost as sickening - almost - as the thought of a HOF that includes Jackson, Rose, or Taterhead. Better 100 more Jack Morrisses and Harold Baineses get in than any one of those three.
Does anyone think if Ruth or Cobb played in todays environment they wouldn’t have been run out by some pretty crazy stuff they were able to get away with back then….no doubt they prob took “a little something extra from a doctor buddy to get a pep in the step” back then and lord knows the socially questionable (by todays standards) things they were prob all involved in…
As long as we're going to play the IF game, IF Bonds played back in the Ruth/Cobb era, he wouldn't have had access to the drugs he had when he played. He would have been a great player, but he wouldn't have hit nearly as many HR.
IF Ruth had been able to get them, he has 1,500 HR.
I am sick and tired of speculation like this. There's no way of knowing what would have happened.
Rose as a player/manager bet on baseball. This is as far as it needs to go, he's out.
Bonds admitted using steroids and CONTINUED to do so while being able to mask his test results. He's also out.
In addition, this doesn't even REMOTELY compare to guys like Ford and Perry who threw a doctored ball a few times a game. The steroid boys were benefitting from their form of cheating 100% of the time.
You don't give shoplifters the death penalty, there are different levels of breaking the rules, and different levels of punishment.
IF Bonds played in the Ruth/Cobb era he wouldn't have been allowed to play with them.
I realize that.
It's the IF GAME.
Ruth couldn't play in today's game,........... he's dead.
You’ve obviously never seen Weekend at Bernie’s ….
Bernie Williams?
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@dallasactuary said:
Schilling, on the other hand, is not in the HOF because he is insufficiently woke and for no other reason. That he is not in the HOF is almost as sickening - almost - as the thought of a HOF that includes Jackson, Rose, or Taterhead. Better 100 more Jack Morrisses and Harold Baineses get in than any one of those three.
Does anyone think if Ruth or Cobb played in todays environment they wouldn’t have been run out by some pretty crazy stuff they were able to get away with back then….no doubt they prob took “a little something extra from a doctor buddy to get a pep in the step” back then and lord knows the socially questionable (by todays standards) things they were prob all involved in…
As long as we're going to play the IF game, IF Bonds played back in the Ruth/Cobb era, he wouldn't have had access to the drugs he had when he played. He would have been a great player, but he wouldn't have hit nearly as many HR.
IF Ruth had been able to get them, he has 1,500 HR.
I am sick and tired of speculation like this. There's no way of knowing what would have happened.
Rose as a player/manager bet on baseball. This is as far as it needs to go, he's out.
Bonds admitted using steroids and CONTINUED to do so while being able to mask his test results. He's also out.
In addition, this doesn't even REMOTELY compare to guys like Ford and Perry who threw a doctored ball a few times a game. The steroid boys were benefitting from their form of cheating 100% of the time.
You don't give shoplifters the death penalty, there are different levels of breaking the rules, and different levels of punishment.
IF Bonds played in the Ruth/Cobb era he wouldn't have been allowed to play with them.
I realize that.
It's the IF GAME.
Ruth couldn't play in today's game,........... he's dead.
You’ve obviously never seen Weekend at Bernie’s ….
Bernie Williams?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
These guys couldn’t hit the gas and junk guys are throwing today - no way - Williams yes, the rest would be really tough
Then again the hitters today may have issues too since they would all be eating baseballs in their ears all day an no one would care if they whined about it
Once betting became legal rose needed to get in, once the owners gave new huge contracts to guys that got caught with roids, bonds and the rest need to go in
Then again the hitters today may have issues too since they would all be eating baseballs in their ears all day an no one would care if they whined about it
I laugh at comments like this. How often do you think guys got thrown at "back in the day"? Especially big stars? Do you think guys did absolutely nothing about it back then? Juan Marichal bashed Johnny Roseboro on the head with a bat. Bert Campaneris threw a bat at Lerrin LaGrow. But, sure, Mike Trout would be getting fastballs at his head every single day.
Comments
No, what's messy is when 50 (or so) year old men are having sex with borderline minor girls.
As I've mentioned before, Pete being reinstated into MLB and getting HOF eligibility, as the GI Joe PSA's would say, is only "half the battle". He's still gotta get 75% just like everyone else.
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
This is 100% correct. Dowd was also close to proving that Rose bet AGAINST the Reds while managing, too.
https://thegruelingtruth.com/baseball/pete-rose-bet-reds-let-show/?fbclid=IwAR1ecg-gwxzc08QBYN-DpZx978Va_7Gx7Ysoq_LCAMK2BkZbaDF6SFVqwNI
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
The guy is a human dumpster fire.
Im gonna have to agree that this is absurd considering Bonds and Rose are not in.
There are very good reasons why Bonds nor Rose are in the HOF and it has nothing to do with their play on the field. It's not as if we are saying Scott Rolen is a better ball player than Barry Bonds because he got in. There are very specific reasons why Bonds and Rose have to buy a ticket just like we do.
Shane
Bonds never failed a MLB drug test.
Of course Bonds used PED's, as did Bagwell, Biggio, Papi. But, since none of them failed a MLB drug test - it's wrong to put some in the Hall and others not.
If Barry was kind to the press and ended his career with 630 HR's he would probably be elected.
It's just sad that in the modern world we live in you have to be nice to the Press to increase your odds at the HOF! What a joke! Are the older members that make up the HOF holding grudges?
I will never take the HOF seriously until Bonds and Clemens are included.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
Well the thing is Bonds was a HOF player literally a decade before his steroid allegations...
Buster Posey is a 1,000% first-ballot lock. I'm surprised this is even a question. 7 AS appearances, a ROY award, an MVP, a batting title and - what locks it up for him - 3 WS championships. He also has that good guy persona going for him, which, like it or not, matters to many of the voters. There's also never been any whispers about PEDs with Posey. He's a shoo-in,
I was pretty sure Ortiz did fail a test.
Can we please admit that Rose wasn't nearly as good as the top "special circumstances" players who are excluded, those being Bonds, Clemens, and Rodriguez?
???
Papi admits he failed a test. He disputed the result but admitted that he did, in fact, fail.
Bonds admitted using steroids, and had tests come back positive when newer tests came along.
When I said the following - "There are very good reasons why Bonds nor Rose are in the HOF and it has nothing to do with their play on the field"..... I should have been more clear as to what I believe should happen....
I was explaining why they are not in the hall (from voters perspective) and not whether or not they should be. The reasons are not because of their play on the field. However, my firm belief is that they SHOULD BE IN the HOF.
To be more consise -
The reason they are not in - voters felt they cheated or gambled.
What do I think should happen - the voters SHOULD look at their play on the field and they should be first ballot HOFers.
This includes -
Shoeless Joe Jackson
Pete Rose
Roger Clemens
Barry Bonds
Mark McGwire
Sammy Sosa
Rafael Palmeiro
Alex Rodriguez
Manny Ramirez
Curt Schilling
I may be missing a few, but those are names I could think of that should be in.
Shane
Shane,
Just for sake of clarity in the thread - and since it bears repeating - Pete Rose agreed to his lifetime ban from baseball and by being placed on that banned list he forfeited all future Hall of Fame eligibility.
It was not the voters who kept him out. There was never an opportunity for Pete Rose to make it to Cooperstown and this was by his own choice. Since he played his last game as a player in 1986 and agreed to his lifetime ban in 1989, he never appeared on a single HOF ballot.
Two years later, he is convicted of tax evasion and sent to prison for failing to report his earnings from sports autograph and memorabilia shows, speaking engagements and, rather ironically, gambling winnings.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
The Hall of Fame changed its rules two years after Rose agreed to the lifetime ban to exclude those on the banned list from consideration. When Rose agreed he did not know it would preclude him from the Hall.
@1951WheatiesPremium I actually knew that he was never on a ballot but forgot momentarily in my post. Thanks for the clarification.
@graygator I did not realize that. So, it looks like when he agreed to the lifetime ban in baseball, how could he have known that it would also include a HOF ban?
All of that being said, Pete Rose should be in the HOF. He should never be allowed to participate in any official MLB capacity, but he should be in the HOF.
Shane
I think Rose gets in the Hall after he passes. They just don't want anything to do with him or have him around because of his gambling on games he participated.
He should absolutely be in the HoF.
You know, I don't agree with your whole list, but I can't really add anyone to it. I mean Cobb and Speaker had that gambling scandal, but their enshrinement wasn't even slowed down. Hal Chase either threw so many games that it looks as though he wasn't anything special, or he was much worse than his reputation.
It's beyond passing strange that there wasn't a single player on the fields of MLB from 1921 to 1962 who isn't in the HoF due to off field action.
Other than Curt Schilling who isn't in the HOF due to off field action? Joe Jackson, Pete Rose, and the steroid mutants are all not in the HOF because of what they did involving games in which they were on the field. It's in part a semantic point, but it's an important one. Joe Jackson is not banned because he stood to gain from what some other team did. Pete Rose is not banned for betting on Tigers games. Taterhead, King of the Mutants, is not being ignored because he roided up to play softball after he had retired.
Schilling, on the other hand, is not in the HOF because he is insufficiently woke and for no other reason. That he is not in the HOF is almost as sickening - almost - as the thought of a HOF that includes Jackson, Rose, or Taterhead. Better 100 more Jack Morrisses and Harold Baineses get in than any one of those three.
What is so hypocritical is how the Hall of Fame has Rose's memorabilia showing. I get that it's just the "Museum" part of the Hall, but it's still a joke. The Museum should refuse to showcase him, but they know the Rose fiasco brings them business.
I think there is enough evidence to show Shoeless Joe probably wasn’t clued in to the scandal. He belongs in he hall. It’s been over 100 years.
Rose will get in after he dies.
What if Curt Schilling had been inducted and then made his controversial comments? Would he have been removed? If not, then he absolutely belongs in the HOF regardless of what he said.
I mean, is it just a timing thing? Say something bad during voting years and you're banned, say the same thing after you're in and it's perfectly OK.
On the contrary, the evidence is that he, at the very least, knew all about it.
I read the messages a lot but rarely post, and almost never get involved in the "who should be in the HOF" discussions...BUT, I wonder how those with strong opinions view the Astros scandal. Verlander, Altuve and Bregman (not sure if on-field production makes or will make all of them HOF worthy), but based on some of the opinions I read here, shouldn't they be excluded from the HOF based on the on-field cheating scandal?
I can accept this position, though I disagree. It's not, though that we're arguing whether Jackson must be excluded even though Eddie Cicotte is already in, and I can certainly see Rose in the same light. But for Bonds et al., I think we need to see them in the light of players who cheated to improve their results. But here's the thing; the HoF is littered with players who are known or suspected with great grounds to have done the same. No doubt, for example, that Perry cheated, and the only questions about Ford relate to whether he can be trusted when he says that he only cheated to hang on at the end of his career and if it matters. As far as PEDs are concerned, despite the Commissioner's "pardon", there can be no doubt that Ortiz used PEDs (the Boston Globe's justification for his inclusion was embarrassingly amusing), and a lot of reason to presume that Piazza, Bagwell, Ryan, and Ivan Rodriguez did as well (I'm sure I'm leaving other players out and that some readers would like to argue that these didn't). My point is simply that if lesser players (Ortiz, Perry) cheated to get into the HoF, then how can we possibly exclude the likes of Clemens, Bonds, and Alex Rodriguez.
Does anyone think if Ruth or Cobb played in todays environment they wouldn’t have been run out by some pretty crazy stuff they were able to get away with back then….no doubt they prob took “a little something extra from a doctor buddy to get a pep in the step” back then and lord knows the socially questionable (by todays standards) things they were prob all involved in…
As long as we're going to play the IF game, IF Bonds played back in the Ruth/Cobb era, he wouldn't have had access to the drugs he had when he played. He would have been a great player, but he wouldn't have hit nearly as many HR.
IF Ruth had been able to get them, he has 1,500 HR.
I am sick and tired of speculation like this. There's no way of knowing what would have happened.
Rose as a player/manager bet on baseball. This is as far as it needs to go, he's out.
Bonds admitted using steroids and CONTINUED to do so while being able to mask his test results. He's also out.
In addition, this doesn't even REMOTELY compare to guys like Ford and Perry who threw a doctored ball a few times a game. The steroid boys were benefitting from their form of cheating 100% of the time.
You don't give shoplifters the death penalty, there are different levels of breaking the rules, and different levels of punishment.
If Ruth faced todays specialized pitchers, who knows how many HR's he had hit. It is not unreasonable to say he would have less than 700.
IF Bonds played in the Ruth/Cobb era he wouldn't have been allowed to play with them.
How much did it sale for is one of the funniest and most ignorant things I've ever heard.
I realize that.
It's the IF GAME.
Ruth couldn't play in today's game,........... he's dead.
You’ve obviously never seen Weekend at Bernie’s ….
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Bernie Williams?
There were several teams last season that played like half their roster was dead guys...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Ted Williams?
Ted Lasso
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
I love where this is going ;-)
These guys couldn’t hit the gas and junk guys are throwing today - no way - Williams yes, the rest would be really tough
Then again the hitters today may have issues too since they would all be eating baseballs in their ears all day an no one would care if they whined about it
Once betting became legal rose needed to get in, once the owners gave new huge contracts to guys that got caught with roids, bonds and the rest need to go in
Ted Kluszewski?
I laugh at comments like this. How often do you think guys got thrown at "back in the day"? Especially big stars? Do you think guys did absolutely nothing about it back then? Juan Marichal bashed Johnny Roseboro on the head with a bat. Bert Campaneris threw a bat at Lerrin LaGrow. But, sure, Mike Trout would be getting fastballs at his head every single day.