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.
While we're on this racism thing...how about the fact that the first commish was not only big time openly racist (and all but single handedly delayed integrating MLB during his administration) and in the HOF...but the frickin' MVP award is named after him!? Each year the best player in each league gets a wooden/gold award honoring a guy who all but had sheets/pointy hats in his closet
<< <i>While we're on this racism thing...how about the fact that the first commish was not only big time openly racist (and all but single handedly delayed integrating MLB during his administration) and in the HOF...but the frickin' MVP award is named after him!? Each year the best player in each league gets a wooden/gold award honoring a guy who all but had sheets/pointy hats in his closet >>
I really don't see where racism comes into play here. During the early years racism was the way many/most people thought. Segregation was in all (or almost all) aspects of society, so how can you take what we have learned and condemn people for believing what was the beliefs of their time?
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
In regard to Ty Cobb and his character, it really has nothing to do with racism. He was a douche, tool, d$#khead, jagbag...you name it. He was the most disliked player in MLB because of those adjectives. His teammates didn't like him because of those adjectives. That is about as poor a character one can be in team sports.
If the HOF truly did use character as their criteria, then he should not be in, and Dale Murphy should be.
If character has ever really meant anything for induction into the HOF, then there should be a player inducted with putrid stats and world class character(the opposite of Cobb), yet there is none.
The mistakes that have gotten in are due to ignorance of statistical measurement.
As for Dick Allen, I would also say that his exclusion is far more to do with statistical ignorance, as opposed to character issues. THere are still people that don't recognize how great a hitter he was. They will point to his lowly total of 1,800 hits, and his high strikeout total(which has always been fooling people, especially during the time when writers were voting him in). Considering he 'only' had 351 HR, he didn't have enough to outweigh those perceived negatives. That is where his exclusion comes from. You STILL have people on this board that look at those perceived negatives that Allen had and will discount that player's value.
Had writers been aware of his OPS+, and recognize ballpark factor, OB% and SLG%, his character would be nothing of note. There are still people that don't understand this.
His lack of longevity also had a big impact on his not being voted in. All that is far more the reason he didn't get voted in as opposed to character.
Dick Allen had worse traditional stats than Jim Rice, and he didn't have the 'most feared' hitter reputation that Rice had. That is why Allen never got it...and look how long it took Rice to get in. That is the reason why Allen didn't get in, not because of attitude.
PS. Rice's most feared hitter is complete BS, but he did have that among writers(because they are stupid).
Character is not the reason why Rose is not in the HOF. He is not in the HOF because he voluntarily agreed to a lifetime ban to stop an investigation that would have undoubtedly revealed what Rose did not want to become public~that he bet on baseball and that he bet on and against the Reds. He is not in the HOF for the same reason that Shoeless Joe Jackson is not in the HOF.
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.
Grote, I know Rose isn't in the Hall because of that. But the notion of character meaning something for the HOF has been complete BS. Voting history shows it. I explained some just above as to why.
<< <i>Grote, I know Rose isn't in the Hall because of that. But the notion of character meaning something for the HOF has been complete BS. Voting history shows it. I explained some just above as to why. >>
I would agree that the character component is very ligtly applied to HOF consideration. Let's face it, fans and voters don't really care how nice a guy is as long as he doesn't cheat, or get banned by the sport.
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.
If there is a number one rule in baseball, gambling is it, and he broke it.
There really is no grey area in it either. Players are told, and signs are posted to remind them, to not bet on baseball games. It really is about as cut and dry a case as there is, especially since he agreed to the ban.
If there is a number one rule in baseball, gambling is it, and he broke it.
There really is no grey area in it either. Players are told, and signs are posted to remind them, to not bet on baseball games. It really is about as cut and dry a case as there is, especially since he agreed to the ban. >>
Plus he lied about it for 20 years, and when he finally admitted it he created a distraction to the Eckersly HOF induction. He's s selfish pr!ck, with no contrition at all over what he did.
<< <i>Very true, and we all pay our dues when we crash and burn. >>
He paid his dues many yrs ago. We are a nation of forgiveness. >>
His punishment is giving up the HOF. In order to receive forgiveness one usually has to admit their mistake and change the behavior.
He broke the number one rule, betting on baseball. He's out.
We are a nation of rules, I don't see too much forgiveness lately, and Pete does not belong in the HOF. Forgive him if you want, but no HOF. >>
I doubt most baseball fans share your opinion. I would bet that there are some people in the hall that did far worse than gambling on baseball games.
Its not a true hall of fame until they let Pete in. >>
Who cares if its a true hall of fame? Who cares about any hall of fame in any sport ? It's a silly concept . When you are done playing shut up and go away make room for the star that is going to replace you.
The Baseball Hall of Fame is not JUST the Hall of Statistical Achievement. It never was, even though many wish it was.
Obviously (most of) the best players get voted in. Some had character flaws that are unacceptable in our time, but were accepted behavior back then.
Ty Cobb gets brought up a LOT, he was not a nice person. He was at the time one of the best if not the best player of all time.
Pete was a great player, but nowhere near as dominant as TY, AND he bet on baseball and subsequently agreed to a lifetime ban in order to stop an investigation into his behaviors. All this happening before he had a chance to get in, as he certainly would have, had he retired after his playing days.
It looks to me that even if MLB wanted to forgive and forget, it would be in direct conflict with the HOF standards which have been posted here many times.
If he is in your HOF, good for you. He's not getting in the MLB HOF and he does not deserve to.
I was a huge Rose fan, but I realize it's over for him.
We'll never agree, and that's just fine.
By the way, Ted Williams brought up Joe Jackson at one of the HOF meetings to see if there was any support for inducting him, and he didn't get any support. Jackson is far more deserving than Rose.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
<< <i>Funny how people like to use this statement when making arguments both for AND against various players being in the HOF. >>
It's an argument that's completely valid for and against certain players.
An example: I have always been on the fence about Ty Cobb being a Hall of Fame worthy player. I think he is a top 5 all-time baseball player, but I always thought his history of racism and violence overshadowed his playing ability. That being said, it's much easier to take moral opinions of the man out of the hall of fame voting - baseball is much simpler viewing players as nothing more than stats.
<< <i>Funny how people like to use this statement when making arguments both for AND against various players being in the HOF. >>
It's an argument that's completely valid for and against certain players.
An example: I have always been on the fence about Ty Cobb being a Hall of Fame worthy player. I think he is a top 5 all-time baseball player, but I always thought his history of racism and violence overshadowed his playing ability. That being said, it's much easier to take moral opinions of the man out of the hall of fame voting - baseball is much simpler viewing players as nothing more than stats. >>
...in which case, if they are going to look at Cobb based strictly on what he did on the field, then by the same standards Rose should be given equal treatment. I've always thought Rose was an arrogant jerk who, much like Cobb, offended more often than not. Never really been a Cincy fan either for that matter... but Rose deserves the Hall just like Cobb does.
It would seem that when Cobb was enshrined the tolerance for violence/racism was more acceptable(?) or at least ignored as an issue for induction. Wonder how that would figure into todays consideration if that induction took place today. With Pete and the gambling issue MLB not only states it's rule in all the clubhouses, but has a very public and well known point of reference/example to refer to-the Black Sox scandal, which seems to be as big a black eye for BB as the racism issue. So it is easier for the GENERAL public to side with MLB on this issue. MLB can always refer to this widely known example to bolster their stand, one where gambling is not tolerated.
Successful transactions:Tookybandit. "Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others".
<< <i>Funny how people like to use this statement when making arguments both for AND against various players being in the HOF. >>
It's an argument that's completely valid for and against certain players.
An example: I have always been on the fence about Ty Cobb being a Hall of Fame worthy player. I think he is a top 5 all-time baseball player, but I always thought his history of racism and violence overshadowed his playing ability. That being said, it's much easier to take moral opinions of the man out of the hall of fame voting - baseball is much simpler viewing players as nothing more than stats. >>
...in which case, if they are going to look at Cobb based strictly on what he did on the field, then by the same standards Rose should be given equal treatment. I've always thought Rose was an arrogant jerk who, much like Cobb, offended more often than not. Never really been a Cincy fan either for that matter... but Rose deserves the Hall just like Cobb does. >>
The significant difference between Rose and Cobb, though, is that Rose broke baseball's cardinal rule and voluntarily agreed to a lifetime ban. Cobb was a nasty individual, but it's unfair to apply a 2015 perspective to his era, as racism was an institutional standard of law back then.
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.
<< <i>Funny how people like to use this statement when making arguments both for AND against various players being in the HOF. >>
It's an argument that's completely valid for and against certain players.
An example: I have always been on the fence about Ty Cobb being a Hall of Fame worthy player. I think he is a top 5 all-time baseball player, but I always thought his history of racism and violence overshadowed his playing ability. That being said, it's much easier to take moral opinions of the man out of the hall of fame voting - baseball is much simpler viewing players as nothing more than stats. >>
...in which case, if they are going to look at Cobb based strictly on what he did on the field, then by the same standards Rose should be given equal treatment. I've always thought Rose was an arrogant jerk who, much like Cobb, offended more often than not. Never really been a Cincy fan either for that matter... but Rose deserves the Hall just like Cobb does. >>
The significant difference between Rose and Cobb, though, is that Rose broke baseball's cardinal rule and voluntarily agreed to a lifetime ban. Cobb was a nasty individual, but it's unfair to apply a 2015 perspective to his era, as racism was an institutional standard of law back then. >>
OK...Let's lay aside the "racism was OK then" thing and talk instead about that "cardinal rule"...namely, the allegations by pitcher Dutch Leonard of game fixing and mysterious "retirement" of Cobb and Tris Speaker in 1926.
As per some research-emphasis mine: "Leonard accused former pitcher and outfielder Smoky Joe Wood and Cobb of betting on a Tiger-Indian game played in Detroit on September 25, 1919, in which they allegedly orchestrated a Tiger victory to win the bet. Leonard claimed proof existed in letters written to him by Cobb and Wood. Commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis held a secret hearing with Cobb, Speaker and Wood. A second secret meeting among the AL directors led to the unpublicized resignations of Cobb and Speaker; however, rumors of the scandal led Judge Landis to hold additional hearings in which Leonard subsequently refused to participate. Cobb and Wood admitted to writing the letters, but claimed that a horse-racing bet was involved and that Leonard's accusations were in retaliation for Cobb's having released him from the Tigers, thereby demoting him to the minor leagues. Speaker denied any wrongdoing. On January 27, 1927, Judge Landis cleared Cobb and Speaker of any wrongdoing because of Leonard's refusal to appear at the hearings. Landis allowed both Cobb and Speaker to return to their original teams, but each team let them know that they were free agents and could sign with any club they wanted. Speaker signed with the Washington Senators for 1927, and Cobb with the Philadelphia Athletics. Speaker then joined Cobb in Philadelphia for the 1928 season. Cobb said he had come back only to seek vindication and say he left baseball on his own terms."
So the only reason Cobb was cleared was because his accuser never showed for the hearing. Does that make him innocent? Just throwing it out there for consideration.
Uncorroborated allegations by a disgruntled former peer with an axe to grind, who later likely reconsideredt the wisdom and veracity of his claim, don't even come close to the same stratosphere of what Rose was found to be guilty of doing.
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.
<< <i>Uncorroborated allegations by a disgruntled former peer with an axe to grind, who later likely reconsideredt the wisdom and veracity of his claim, don't even come close to the same stratosphere of what Rose was found to be guilty of doing. >>
Maybe the disgruntled former peer was coerced into reconsidering his position; maybe the sport wanted to cover this up to protect the game in light of the recent Black Sox fiasco...we will never know the real truth of it because back then there wasn't as much transparency as there is now, plus the press wasn't quite so much like a pack of sharks looking for a wounded fish. My point was that there are undoubtedly other gamblers in the Hall as we speak...so although yes, Rose agreed to (more like was forced to agree to) the ban, he still deserves the Hall at some point imo.
Fortunately, we rely on factual evidence and proof rather than speculation and a host of maybes when meting out these decisions.
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.
<< <i>Fortunately, we rely on factual evidence and proof rather than speculation and a host of maybes when meting out these decisions. >>
Speculation- that would also include statements like "Uncorroborated allegations by a disgruntled former peer with an axe to grind, who later likely reconsidered the wisdom and veracity of his claim", yes?
<< <i>Fortunately, we rely on factual evidence and proof rather than speculation and a host of maybes when meting out these decisions. >>
Speculation- that would also include statements like "Uncorroborated allegations by a disgruntled former peer with an axe to grind, who later likely reconsidered the wisdom and veracity of his claim", yes? >>
True, lol, but for a conviction, the onus is on the accuser, or those bringing forth the allegations, not the accused.
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.
<< <i>...so although yes, Rose agreed to (more like was forced to agree to) the ban... >>
OK, explain how he was "forced" to agree to the ban. What would have happened, that was worse than a lifetime ban from baseball including the HOF, had he not agreed? I agree with you, but if you really understood how he was forced to agree to the ban, I don't think you'd be arguing that he should be in the HOF.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
<< <i>...so although yes, Rose agreed to (more like was forced to agree to) the ban... >>
OK, explain how he was "forced" to agree to the ban. What would have happened, that was worse than a lifetime ban from baseball including the HOF, had he not agreed? I agree with you, but if you really understood how he was forced to agree to the ban, I don't think you'd be arguing that he should be in the HOF. >>
You misunderstand my position. I'm not trying to forward the position that Pete never gambled; I'm sure he did, and that was leveraged against him by Giamatti et. al. (who hated his guts and never bothered to try to hide that he was gunning for Rose) with the whole ban agreement thing.
My position is and has always been that there are others currently in the Hall, including some of the most famous individuals there, who have done things as bad and worse than simply betting on baseball...so to allow those individuals a pass (using in some cases very flimsy excuses imo, particularly with Cobb, who I'll gladly argue all day was a provably worse human being than Rose could ever be)...while denying the all time hit leader in baseball (amongst the other 24 records he holds to this day) is the height of hypocrisy and it makes the Hall a joke IMO.
<< <i>...so although yes, Rose agreed to (more like was forced to agree to) the ban... >>
OK, explain how he was "forced" to agree to the ban. What would have happened, that was worse than a lifetime ban from baseball including the HOF, had he not agreed? I agree with you, but if you really understood how he was forced to agree to the ban, I don't think you'd be arguing that he should be in the HOF. >>
You misunderstand my position. I'm not trying to forward the position that Pete never gambled; I'm sure he did, and that was leveraged against him by Giamatti et. al. (who hated his guts and never bothered to try to hide that he was gunning for Rose) with the whole ban agreement thing.
My position is and has always been that there are others currently in the Hall, including some of the most famous individuals there, who have done things as bad and worse than simply betting on baseball...so to allow those individuals a pass (using in some cases very flimsy excuses imo, particularly with Cobb, who I'll gladly argue all day was a provably worse human being than Rose could ever be)...while denying the all time hit leader in baseball (amongst the other 24 records he holds to this day) is the height of hypocrisy and it makes the Hall a joke IMO. >>
That may be your position but it really has no relevance to the reality of the circumstances as to why Cobb is in the Hall and Rose isn't.
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.
<< <i>My position is and has always been that there are others currently in the Hall, including some of the most famous individuals there, who have done things as bad and worse than simply betting on baseball...so to allow those individuals a pass (using in some cases very flimsy excuses imo, particularly with Cobb, who I'll gladly argue all day was a provably worse human being than Rose could ever be)...while denying the all time hit leader in baseball (amongst the other 24 records he holds to this day) is the height of hypocrisy and it makes the Hall a joke IMO. >>
You either aren't listening or don't understand.
You are correct in that Cobb was probably a "worse" human being than Rose, but the country was racist (addressing the race issue) at the time. The law of the land supported segregation AND discrimination, so Cobb's attitude was in tune with the times. He was elected during that time, it's unfair to hold it against him now. Were he to be up for election now, he would have a lot of people saying he doesn't deserve to be in, but that's not the case.
People that really understand baseball, even the biggest Pete Rose fans (I am one of them) MUST understand that he broke the number 1 rule in baseball when he not only bet on baseball games, but he bet on games the team he was managing was playing in. My gosh man, you simply cannot ignore that and simply say "he should get in because he had a HOF playing career".
If you let Pete in, the Hall of Fame would be meaningless.
Start your own HOF and let Pete in and the juicers too if you want. When you start a HOF YOU get to make the rules.
Over and out.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
I'm really trying hard to remain civil here but I resent the inferences by others that I'm stupid, or don't know the Rose situation, or baseball in general, just because my position differs from theirs. The Hall is already meaningless for the most part because the people who make the decisions are hypocrites. We already have Hall members who are there simply for their stats and despite their checkered private lives. Druggies, drunks, felons, attempted murderers, and yes, gamblers. Integrity my arse. So Pete Rose bet on baseball. Big deal. We get blather all the time talking about second chances for people with problems way worse than gambling. How many multiple time loser drunks, junkies et.al. have gotten 2nd, 3rd, 4th chances? So a guy who had an obvious gambling problem can't have one as well? Hypocritical BS IMO.
<< <i>I'm really trying hard to remain civil here but I resent the inferences by others that I'm stupid, or don't know the Rose situation, or baseball in general, just because my position differs from theirs. The Hall is already meaningless for the most part because the people who make the decisions are hypocrites. We already have Hall members who are there simply for their stats and despite their checkered private lives. Druggies, drunks, felons, attempted murderers, and yes, gamblers. Integrity my arse. So Pete Rose bet on baseball. Big deal. We get blather all the time talking about second chances for people with problems way worse than gambling. How many multiple time loser drunks, junkies et.al. have gotten 2nd, 3rd, 4th chances? So a guy who had an obvious gambling problem can't have one as well? Hypocritical BS IMO. >>
You are continuing to miss the point. Yes, betting on baseball, while playing or managing the game, IS a big deal. It has been a big deal for decades and decades, so much so that a warning against it is embalzoned in every clubhouse, from the lowest level of the minor leagues to the majors. The fact that you consider it not to be a big deal is fine, but that is simply your opinion of how gambling on the game should be viewed, and not supported by the reality of the rules in place. While you may personally find "druggies, drunks and felons" equally or even more offensive than gambling on the game of baseball is yet another opinion, but the game of baseball makes a significant distinction between such behaviors, primarily because one has a direct effect on the integrity of the game and the institution of baseball itself, while the other does not. If the public learns that outcomes are fixed, or that bookmakers are involved in the results, the game of baseball loses all credibility, a much more severe effect than someone failing a drug test or even breaking the law.
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.
You are continuing to miss the point. Yes, betting on baseball, while playing or managing the game, IS a big deal. It has been a big deal for decades and decades, so much so that a warning against it is embalzoned in every clubhouse, from the lowest level of the minor leagues to the majors.
First off, I am missing nothing. I get it. You're not supposed to bet on baseball if you play the game professionally. My contention is that in all probability there are others currently in the Hall who have done so, but either simply weren't caught or because of their legendary status and/or in an attempt to save face for the sport it was ignored or swept under the rug. Rose however became the target of a vengeful commissioner on a mission to make his transgression a big deal.
I acknowledge that he will likely not make the Hall in his lifetime, but he should and eventually will be there. As it should also be with Joe Jackson, who was a victim of guilt by association and his own naiveté-his WS record showed that he didn't sandbag anything. But I digress.
Actually, if Manfred's early statements are any indication, Rose has reason to be optimistic. He's already been given approval to participate at the All Star festivities this summer in Cincinnati.
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.
I agree with the ban from the standpoint that it was settled within the governing rules of baseball. Petes supporters can find comfort in knowing he still remains the "hit king", and only a player who breaks his record can take that away from him.Although not sports related.What says alot about our country and rules in general is someone like Pres. Nixon can virtually bring this country to it's knees(Watergate),resign in disgrace(a lifetime ban in a sense as far as integrity is concerned),and still be pardoned by Pres. Ford. This comparitive is what make many in our country leave us scratching our heads,but it is the nature of the beast.
Successful transactions:Tookybandit. "Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others".
<< <i>You misunderstand my position. I'm not trying to forward the position that Pete never gambled; I'm sure he did, and that was leveraged against him by Giamatti et. al. >>
I think I misunderstand your position because you won't state it. You said Rose was "forced" to agree to a lifetime ban. What that means is that he must have feared consequences even worse than being banned from baseball and the HOF, else there's no reason at all to agree to it. The question I asked, that you dodged, was what do you think Rose did that was even worse than what was made public, and what were the consequences you think he feared so much that he agreed to be banned form baseball and the HOF for eternity? I'll understand your position if you'll answer that question.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Plenty of people are "forced" into jail when they are caught breaking the law, however you don't get in trouble if you break the law and don't get caught.
All systems are flawed, doesn't mean we still don't try to follow the rules as they are set down. Doesn't mean these systems are worthless.
I apologize if my statements offended you telephoto, they weren't really a dig, I simply feel that Pete broke the #1 rule and got caught. In any system with rules and punishments, breaking the most important rule usually gets the most severe punishment.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
<< <i>Plenty of people are "forced" into jail when they are caught breaking the law, ... >>
Yes, but the way that works is that a defendant is "forced" to plead guilty to a crime in exchange for a certain punishment by being threatened with an even greater punishment if he doesn't agree. People do not agree to the death penalty without a trial, because they have nothing at all to lose by going to trial. Rose agreed to a lifetime ban, which necessarily means that he feared an even greater punishment than that. But MLB's equivalent of the death penalty is a lifetime ban - they have no worse punishment to impose. So why did Rose agree to the lifetime ban? I can think of a few possibilities, and all of them point to Rose never, ever being enshrined in the HOF. Asking the HOF to admit Rose is like asking someone if you can give them cancer; they're never going to agree to it, and they'd be fools if they ever did. Rose is a cancer on baseball, and it's much better off if he's removed than if he's permanently placed in a position of honor.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
<< <i>You misunderstand my position. I'm not trying to forward the position that Pete never gambled; I'm sure he did, and that was leveraged against him by Giamatti et. al. >>
I think I misunderstand your position because you won't state it. You said Rose was "forced" to agree to a lifetime ban. What that means is that he must have feared consequences even worse than being banned from baseball and the HOF, else there's no reason at all to agree to it. The question I asked, that you dodged, was what do you think Rose did that was even worse than what was made public, and what were the consequences you think he feared so much that he agreed to be banned form baseball and the HOF for eternity? I'll understand your position if you'll answer that question. >>
Wow, some here are fixated on the word "forced". I could have as easily said "maneuvered into", which in retrospect is likely a more accurate term.
"...What that means is that he must have feared consequences even worse than being banned from baseball and the HOF, else there's no reason at all to agree to it."
Possibly, but in the end it's still speculation. We weren't at the meeting so we'll never know the specifics. It was clear that Giamatti wouldn't accept anything less than a lifetime ban and Rose likely thought that even with the ban, he figured at some point (with a new commissioner), he'd have a more sympathetic ear and perhaps get it reversed down the line, much like those with a life sentence get parole hearings after a given period. However, again he gambled and lost...after Giamatti's untimely death there were undoubtedly many who thought that reversing or modifying the ban would be considered by some as an insult to Giamatti's legacy as commissioner. Now, enough time has gone by that apparently such positions have softened; as mentioned by Grote, he's likely going to be at the All Star festivities (no doubt due to the location!)...perhaps this is the positive sign Rose supporters have been seeking. If they want him to keep out of the business, that's one thing-but continuing to deny him the Hall for his contributions to the game is an extreme unfairness if not a travesty IMO.
<< <i>Wow, some here are fixated on the word "forced". I could have as easily said "maneuvered into", which in retrospect is likely a more accurate term. >>
So, you understand now why I didn't understand your position? I'll assume that this is your final answer and respond accordingly; if you change your position yet again, I'll just give up.
<< <i>It was clear that Giamatti wouldn't accept anything less than a lifetime ban and Rose likely thought that even with the ban, he figured at some point (with a new commissioner), he'd have a more sympathetic ear and perhaps get it reversed down the line, much like those with a life sentence get parole hearings after a given period. However, again he gambled and lost... >>
If it was clear that no matter what Rose said or did Giamatti was going to impose a lifetime ban (a death sentence), and if Rose's hope was that someday that decision would be reversed, then the question still remains - why agree to it? You concede that his acceptance would have no bearing on what Giamatti would do - the lifetime ban was inevitable in any event - so Rose accepting or objecting to the lifetime ban could only be intended to influence those in the future who would be in a position to reverse the ban. And if you are one of those future people, what would make you more inclined to lift a "lifetime" ban - if the person involved agreed that a lifetime ban was a fair and just punishment, or if he fought against it as too harsh? The real question is what did Pete Rose stand to gain by agreeing to a lifetime ban, and it's the question that you keep dancing around. Since a lifetime ban is the most serious punishment at MLB's disposal, the obvious inference is that Rose feared punishment from another source.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
The real question is what did Pete Rose stand to gain by agreeing to a lifetime ban, and it's the question that you keep dancing around. Since a lifetime ban is the most serious punishment at MLB's disposal, the obvious inference is that Rose feared punishment from another source.
Asking what Rose "stood to gain" by agreeing to the ban is like asking what a convicted felon stands to gain when faced with a hanging judge. He had nothing to gain, but there were no alternatives. You obviously think that Giamatti had something else more damning on him, perhaps something criminal. My response to that is that if he did, he'd have taken it all the way. He hated Rose's guts, plus willful concealment of known criminal activity would damage both Giamatti's rep and that of the sport. He'd never do that unless he was stupid, and Giamatti was far from stupid, IMO at least. Is this a sufficient answer or am I still "dancing around"?
<< <i>Asking what Rose "stood to gain" by agreeing to the ban is like asking what a convicted felon stands to gain when faced with a hanging judge. He had nothing to gain, but there were no alternatives. You obviously think that Giamatti had something else more damning on him, perhaps something criminal. My response to that is that if he did, he'd have taken it all the way. He hated Rose's guts, plus willful concealment of known criminal activity would damage both Giamatti's rep and that of the sport. He'd never do that unless he was stupid, and Giamatti was far from stupid, IMO at least. Is this a sufficient answer or am I still "dancing around"? >>
No, it's not like a convicted felon, unless you're saying that the felon says "sure, I agree to this hanging". But he never would. The chance of escaping the hanging may be very low if you fight it, but it's non-existent if you don't, so nobody simply agrees to it. To say "there were no alternatives" is simply incorrect - the alternative was not to agree to it, to make the case that what you did wasn't serious enough to merit such a harsh punishment, and hope that one day people see it your way. When "your way" is that what you did was so heinous that a lifetime ban from baseball is the proper punishment, then there's nothing for people to see differently in the future. The one thing on which everyone agreed was that a lifetime ban from baseball was appropriate; there is no longer an opposing POV to even consider so nobody ever will.
I'm open to other opinions, but the most likely cause seems to me to be that there was evidence that Rose threw baseball games. That is both a crime, and a situation that Giamatti would not have wanted to be made public. Getting Rose to agree to go away - forever - is a reasonable compromise in that situation. If there's another scenario in which both Rose and Giamatti benefited from the agreement that was reached - what is it? Until you explain how Rose reasonably believed that he was better off agreeing to the ban than not agreeing to the ban, yes, you're still dancing.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Until you explain how Rose reasonably believed that he was better off agreeing to the ban than not agreeing to the ban, yes, you're still dancing.
Rose's ego was as big as all outdoors. For all anyone knows he might have thought that the whole "ban" thing would be reconsidered at some point because of his greatness and that was a better option with a shorter news cycle attached rather than fighting longer and having himself publicly dragged through the mud any further. Or maybe you're right, he threw games and Giamatti concealed the evidence of this in exchange for the ban. I disagree because a) he hated Rose and would crush him if he could imo and b) it might also have gotten Giamatti in trouble personally by said concealment. Neither of us will ever know the truth it appears, so continuing to argue it seems pointless. Pete bet on baseball, he's finally owned up to it, and as to him throwing games...all I can say is show proof or it didn't happen. Rose haters have had a good couple of decades to come up with said proof so I'm leaning towards the latter.
The one person who would know, Dowd, has stated publicly that there was evidence that Rose at least bet against the Reds on certain occasions, but that part of the agreement between Rose and Giamatti was that the investigation would be stopped in exchange for Rose agreeing to a lifetime ban so Dowd wasn't able to conclude that apect of the investigation and left it out of the report.
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.
Comments
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.
<< <i>Spot on analysis, Dallas. >>
His posts make me feel like a simpleton.
"If I say something in the woods and my wife isn't there to hear it.....am I still wrong?"
My Washington Quarter Registry set...in progress
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
<< <i>While we're on this racism thing...how about the fact that the first commish was not only big time openly racist (and all but single handedly delayed integrating MLB during his administration) and in the HOF...but the frickin' MVP award is named after him!? Each year the best player in each league gets a wooden/gold award honoring a guy who all but had sheets/pointy hats in his closet
I really don't see where racism comes into play here. During the early years racism was the way many/most people thought. Segregation was in all (or almost all) aspects of society, so how can you take what we have learned and condemn people for believing what was the beliefs of their time?
If the HOF truly did use character as their criteria, then he should not be in, and Dale Murphy should be.
If character has ever really meant anything for induction into the HOF, then there should be a player inducted with putrid stats and world class character(the opposite of Cobb), yet there is none.
The mistakes that have gotten in are due to ignorance of statistical measurement.
As for Dick Allen, I would also say that his exclusion is far more to do with statistical ignorance, as opposed to character issues. THere are still people that don't recognize how great a hitter he was. They will point to his lowly total of 1,800 hits, and his high strikeout total(which has always been fooling people, especially during the time when writers were voting him in). Considering he 'only' had 351 HR, he didn't have enough to outweigh those perceived negatives. That is where his exclusion comes from. You STILL have people on this board that look at those perceived negatives that Allen had and will discount that player's value.
Had writers been aware of his OPS+, and recognize ballpark factor, OB% and SLG%, his character would be nothing of note. There are still people that don't understand this.
His lack of longevity also had a big impact on his not being voted in. All that is far more the reason he didn't get voted in as opposed to character.
Dick Allen had worse traditional stats than Jim Rice, and he didn't have the 'most feared' hitter reputation that Rice had. That is why Allen never got it...and look how long it took Rice to get in. That is the reason why Allen didn't get in, not because of attitude.
PS. Rice's most feared hitter is complete BS, but he did have that among writers(because they are stupid).
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.
<< <i>Grote, I know Rose isn't in the Hall because of that. But the notion of character meaning something for the HOF has been complete BS. Voting history shows it. I explained some just above as to why. >>
I would agree that the character component is very ligtly applied to HOF consideration. Let's face it, fans and voters don't really care how nice a guy is as long as he doesn't cheat, or get banned by the sport.
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.
As for Rose specifically, he shouldn't get in.
If there is a number one rule in baseball, gambling is it, and he broke it.
There really is no grey area in it either. Players are told, and signs are posted to remind them, to not bet on baseball games. It really is about as cut and dry a case as there is, especially since he agreed to the ban.
<< <i>Grote, I agree.
As for Rose specifically, he shouldn't get in.
If there is a number one rule in baseball, gambling is it, and he broke it.
There really is no grey area in it either. Players are told, and signs are posted to remind them, to not bet on baseball games. It really is about as cut and dry a case as there is, especially since he agreed to the ban. >>
Plus he lied about it for 20 years, and when he finally admitted it he created a distraction to the Eckersly HOF induction. He's s selfish pr!ck, with no contrition at all over what he did.
His Skectcher commercials are funny, though.
Most career hits – 4,256
Most career outs – 10,328
Most career games played – 3,562
Most career at bats – 14,053
Most career singles – 3,215
Most career runs by a switch hitter – 2,165
Most career doubles by a switch hitter – 746
Most career walks by a switch hitter – 1,566
Most career total bases by a switch hitter – 5,752
Most seasons of 200 or more hits – 10 (shared)
Most consecutive seasons of 100 or more hits – 23
Most consecutive seasons with 600 or more at bats – 13 (1968–1980)
Most seasons with 600 at bats – 17
Most seasons with 150 or more games played – 17
Most seasons with 100 or more games played – 23
Record for playing in the most winning games – 1,972
Only player in major league history to play more than 500 games at five different positions – 1B (939), LF (671), 3B (634), 2B (628), RF (595)
National League records:
Most years played – 24
Most consecutive years played – 24
Most career runs – 2,165
Most career doubles – 746
Most career games with 5 or more hits – 10
Modern (post-1900) NL record for longest consecutive-game hitting streak NL – 44
Modern record for most consecutive hitting streaks of 20 or more games – 7
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
<< <i>All those records, the guy had to be incredibly STUPID to bet on baseball...............what a tool. >>
We all have our addictions my friend.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
<< <i>Very true, and we all pay our dues when we crash and burn. >>
He paid his dues many yrs ago. We are a nation of forgiveness.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
<< <i>
<< <i>Very true, and we all pay our dues when we crash and burn. >>
He paid his dues many yrs ago. We are a nation of forgiveness. >>
His punishment is giving up the HOF. In order to receive forgiveness one usually has to admit their mistake and change the behavior.
He broke the number one rule, betting on baseball. He's out.
We are a nation of rules, I don't see too much forgiveness lately, and Pete does not belong in the HOF. Forgive him if you want, but no HOF.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Very true, and we all pay our dues when we crash and burn. >>
He paid his dues many yrs ago. We are a nation of forgiveness. >>
His punishment is giving up the HOF. In order to receive forgiveness one usually has to admit their mistake and change the behavior.
He broke the number one rule, betting on baseball. He's out.
We are a nation of rules, I don't see too much forgiveness lately, and Pete does not belong in the HOF. Forgive him if you want, but no HOF. >>
I doubt most baseball fans share your opinion. I would bet that there are some people in the hall that did far worse than gambling on baseball games.
Its not a true hall of fame until they let Pete in.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Very true, and we all pay our dues when we crash and burn. >>
He paid his dues many yrs ago. We are a nation of forgiveness. >>
His punishment is giving up the HOF. In order to receive forgiveness one usually has to admit their mistake and change the behavior.
He broke the number one rule, betting on baseball. He's out.
We are a nation of rules, I don't see too much forgiveness lately, and Pete does not belong in the HOF. Forgive him if you want, but no HOF. >>
I doubt most baseball fans share your opinion. I would bet that there are some people in the hall that did far worse than gambling on baseball games.
Its not a true hall of fame until they let Pete in. >>
Who cares if its a true hall of fame? Who cares about any hall of fame in any sport ? It's a silly concept . When you are done playing shut up and go away make room for the star that is going to replace you.
Obviously (most of) the best players get voted in. Some had character flaws that are unacceptable in our time, but were accepted behavior back then.
Ty Cobb gets brought up a LOT, he was not a nice person. He was at the time one of the best if not the best player of all time.
Pete was a great player, but nowhere near as dominant as TY, AND he bet on baseball and subsequently agreed to a lifetime ban in order to stop an investigation into his behaviors. All this happening before he had a chance to get in, as he certainly would have, had he retired after his playing days.
It looks to me that even if MLB wanted to forgive and forget, it would be in direct conflict with the HOF standards which have been posted here many times.
If he is in your HOF, good for you. He's not getting in the MLB HOF and he does not deserve to.
I was a huge Rose fan, but I realize it's over for him.
We'll never agree, and that's just fine.
By the way, Ted Williams brought up Joe Jackson at one of the HOF meetings to see if there was any support for inducting him, and he didn't get any support. Jackson is far more deserving than Rose.
Funny how people like to use this statement when making arguments both for AND against various players being in the HOF.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
<< <i>Funny how people like to use this statement when making arguments both for AND against various players being in the HOF. >>
It's an argument that's completely valid for and against certain players.
An example: I have always been on the fence about Ty Cobb being a Hall of Fame worthy player. I think he is a top 5 all-time baseball player, but I always thought his history of racism and violence overshadowed his playing ability. That being said, it's much easier to take moral opinions of the man out of the hall of fame voting - baseball is much simpler viewing players as nothing more than stats.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
<< <i>baseball is much simpler viewing players as nothing more than stats. >>
Very true.
<< <i>
<< <i>Funny how people like to use this statement when making arguments both for AND against various players being in the HOF. >>
It's an argument that's completely valid for and against certain players.
An example: I have always been on the fence about Ty Cobb being a Hall of Fame worthy player. I think he is a top 5 all-time baseball player, but I always thought his history of racism and violence overshadowed his playing ability. That being said, it's much easier to take moral opinions of the man out of the hall of fame voting - baseball is much simpler viewing players as nothing more than stats. >>
...in which case, if they are going to look at Cobb based strictly on what he did on the field, then by the same standards Rose should be given equal treatment. I've always thought Rose was an arrogant jerk who, much like Cobb, offended more often than not. Never really been a Cincy fan either for that matter... but Rose deserves the Hall just like Cobb does.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Funny how people like to use this statement when making arguments both for AND against various players being in the HOF. >>
It's an argument that's completely valid for and against certain players.
An example: I have always been on the fence about Ty Cobb being a Hall of Fame worthy player. I think he is a top 5 all-time baseball player, but I always thought his history of racism and violence overshadowed his playing ability. That being said, it's much easier to take moral opinions of the man out of the hall of fame voting - baseball is much simpler viewing players as nothing more than stats. >>
...in which case, if they are going to look at Cobb based strictly on what he did on the field, then by the same standards Rose should be given equal treatment. I've always thought Rose was an arrogant jerk who, much like Cobb, offended more often than not. Never really been a Cincy fan either for that matter... but Rose deserves the Hall just like Cobb does. >>
The significant difference between Rose and Cobb, though, is that Rose broke baseball's cardinal rule and voluntarily agreed to a lifetime ban. Cobb was a nasty individual, but it's unfair to apply a 2015 perspective to his era, as racism was an institutional standard of law back then.
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.
<< <i>
<< <i>Very true, and we all pay our dues when we crash and burn. >>
He paid his dues many yrs ago. We are a nation of forgiveness. >>
It's hard to forgive someone who lied for 20 years and then makes a transparently phony "apology". Let Shoeless Joe in first.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Funny how people like to use this statement when making arguments both for AND against various players being in the HOF. >>
It's an argument that's completely valid for and against certain players.
An example: I have always been on the fence about Ty Cobb being a Hall of Fame worthy player. I think he is a top 5 all-time baseball player, but I always thought his history of racism and violence overshadowed his playing ability. That being said, it's much easier to take moral opinions of the man out of the hall of fame voting - baseball is much simpler viewing players as nothing more than stats. >>
...in which case, if they are going to look at Cobb based strictly on what he did on the field, then by the same standards Rose should be given equal treatment. I've always thought Rose was an arrogant jerk who, much like Cobb, offended more often than not. Never really been a Cincy fan either for that matter... but Rose deserves the Hall just like Cobb does. >>
The significant difference between Rose and Cobb, though, is that Rose broke baseball's cardinal rule and voluntarily agreed to a lifetime ban. Cobb was a nasty individual, but it's unfair to apply a 2015 perspective to his era, as racism was an institutional standard of law back then. >>
OK...Let's lay aside the "racism was OK then" thing and talk instead about that "cardinal rule"...namely, the allegations by pitcher Dutch Leonard of game fixing and mysterious "retirement" of Cobb and Tris Speaker in 1926.
As per some research-emphasis mine: "Leonard accused former pitcher and outfielder Smoky Joe Wood and Cobb of betting on a Tiger-Indian game played in Detroit on September 25, 1919, in which they allegedly orchestrated a Tiger victory to win the bet. Leonard claimed proof existed in letters written to him by Cobb and Wood. Commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis held a secret hearing with Cobb, Speaker and Wood. A second secret meeting among the AL directors led to the unpublicized resignations of Cobb and Speaker; however, rumors of the scandal led Judge Landis to hold additional hearings in which Leonard subsequently refused to participate. Cobb and Wood admitted to writing the letters, but claimed that a horse-racing bet was involved and that Leonard's accusations were in retaliation for Cobb's having released him from the Tigers, thereby demoting him to the minor leagues. Speaker denied any wrongdoing. On January 27, 1927, Judge Landis cleared Cobb and Speaker of any wrongdoing because of Leonard's refusal to appear at the hearings. Landis allowed both Cobb and Speaker to return to their original teams, but each team let them know that they were free agents and could sign with any club they wanted. Speaker signed with the Washington Senators for 1927, and Cobb with the Philadelphia Athletics. Speaker then joined Cobb in Philadelphia for the 1928 season. Cobb said he had come back only to seek vindication and say he left baseball on his own terms."
So the only reason Cobb was cleared was because his accuser never showed for the hearing. Does that make him innocent? Just throwing it out there for consideration.
Edit for typo.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
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.
<< <i>Uncorroborated allegations by a disgruntled former peer with an axe to grind, who later likely reconsideredt the wisdom and veracity of his claim, don't even come close to the same stratosphere of what Rose was found to be guilty of doing. >>
Maybe the disgruntled former peer was coerced into reconsidering his position; maybe the sport wanted to cover this up to protect the game in light of the recent Black Sox fiasco...we will never know the real truth of it because back then there wasn't as much transparency as there is now, plus the press wasn't quite so much like a pack of sharks looking for a wounded fish. My point was that there are undoubtedly other gamblers in the Hall as we speak...so although yes, Rose agreed to (more like was forced to agree to) the ban, he still deserves the Hall at some point imo.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
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.
<< <i>Fortunately, we rely on factual evidence and proof rather than speculation and a host of maybes when meting out these decisions. >>
Speculation- that would also include statements like "Uncorroborated allegations by a disgruntled former peer with an axe to grind, who later likely reconsidered the wisdom and veracity of his claim", yes?
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
<< <i>
<< <i>Fortunately, we rely on factual evidence and proof rather than speculation and a host of maybes when meting out these decisions. >>
Speculation- that would also include statements like "Uncorroborated allegations by a disgruntled former peer with an axe to grind, who later likely reconsidered the wisdom and veracity of his claim", yes?
True, lol, but for a conviction, the onus is on the accuser, or those bringing forth the allegations, not the accused.
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.
<< <i>...so although yes, Rose agreed to (more like was forced to agree to) the ban... >>
OK, explain how he was "forced" to agree to the ban. What would have happened, that was worse than a lifetime ban from baseball including the HOF, had he not agreed? I agree with you, but if you really understood how he was forced to agree to the ban, I don't think you'd be arguing that he should be in the HOF.
<< <i>
<< <i>...so although yes, Rose agreed to (more like was forced to agree to) the ban... >>
OK, explain how he was "forced" to agree to the ban. What would have happened, that was worse than a lifetime ban from baseball including the HOF, had he not agreed? I agree with you, but if you really understood how he was forced to agree to the ban, I don't think you'd be arguing that he should be in the HOF. >>
You misunderstand my position. I'm not trying to forward the position that Pete never gambled; I'm sure he did, and that was leveraged against him by Giamatti et. al. (who hated his guts and never bothered to try to hide that he was gunning for Rose) with the whole ban agreement thing.
My position is and has always been that there are others currently in the Hall, including some of the most famous individuals there, who have done things as bad and worse than simply betting on baseball...so to allow those individuals a pass (using in some cases very flimsy excuses imo, particularly with Cobb, who I'll gladly argue all day was a provably worse human being than Rose could ever be)...while denying the all time hit leader in baseball (amongst the other 24 records he holds to this day) is the height of hypocrisy and it makes the Hall a joke IMO.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>...so although yes, Rose agreed to (more like was forced to agree to) the ban... >>
OK, explain how he was "forced" to agree to the ban. What would have happened, that was worse than a lifetime ban from baseball including the HOF, had he not agreed? I agree with you, but if you really understood how he was forced to agree to the ban, I don't think you'd be arguing that he should be in the HOF. >>
You misunderstand my position. I'm not trying to forward the position that Pete never gambled; I'm sure he did, and that was leveraged against him by Giamatti et. al. (who hated his guts and never bothered to try to hide that he was gunning for Rose) with the whole ban agreement thing.
My position is and has always been that there are others currently in the Hall, including some of the most famous individuals there, who have done things as bad and worse than simply betting on baseball...so to allow those individuals a pass (using in some cases very flimsy excuses imo, particularly with Cobb, who I'll gladly argue all day was a provably worse human being than Rose could ever be)...while denying the all time hit leader in baseball (amongst the other 24 records he holds to this day) is the height of hypocrisy and it makes the Hall a joke IMO. >>
That may be your position but it really has no relevance to the reality of the circumstances as to why Cobb is in the Hall and Rose isn't.
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.
<< <i>My position is and has always been that there are others currently in the Hall, including some of the most famous individuals there, who have done things as bad and worse than simply betting on baseball...so to allow those individuals a pass (using in some cases very flimsy excuses imo, particularly with Cobb, who I'll gladly argue all day was a provably worse human being than Rose could ever be)...while denying the all time hit leader in baseball (amongst the other 24 records he holds to this day) is the height of hypocrisy and it makes the Hall a joke IMO. >>
You either aren't listening or don't understand.
You are correct in that Cobb was probably a "worse" human being than Rose, but the country was racist (addressing the race issue) at the time. The law of the land supported segregation AND discrimination, so Cobb's attitude was in tune with the times. He was elected during that time, it's unfair to hold it against him now. Were he to be up for election now, he would have a lot of people saying he doesn't deserve to be in, but that's not the case.
People that really understand baseball, even the biggest Pete Rose fans (I am one of them) MUST understand that he broke the number 1 rule in baseball when he not only bet on baseball games, but he bet on games the team he was managing was playing in. My gosh man, you simply cannot ignore that and simply say "he should get in because he had a HOF playing career".
If you let Pete in, the Hall of Fame would be meaningless.
Start your own HOF and let Pete in and the juicers too if you want. When you start a HOF YOU get to make the rules.
Over and out.
The Hall is already meaningless for the most part because the people who make the decisions are hypocrites. We already have Hall members who are there simply for their stats and despite their checkered private lives. Druggies, drunks, felons, attempted murderers, and yes, gamblers. Integrity my arse. So Pete Rose bet on baseball. Big deal. We get blather all the time talking about second chances for people with problems way worse than gambling. How many multiple time loser drunks, junkies et.al. have gotten 2nd, 3rd, 4th chances? So a guy who had an obvious gambling problem can't have one as well? Hypocritical BS IMO.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
<< <i>I'm really trying hard to remain civil here but I resent the inferences by others that I'm stupid, or don't know the Rose situation, or baseball in general, just because my position differs from theirs.
The Hall is already meaningless for the most part because the people who make the decisions are hypocrites. We already have Hall members who are there simply for their stats and despite their checkered private lives. Druggies, drunks, felons, attempted murderers, and yes, gamblers. Integrity my arse. So Pete Rose bet on baseball. Big deal. We get blather all the time talking about second chances for people with problems way worse than gambling. How many multiple time loser drunks, junkies et.al. have gotten 2nd, 3rd, 4th chances? So a guy who had an obvious gambling problem can't have one as well? Hypocritical BS IMO. >>
You are continuing to miss the point. Yes, betting on baseball, while playing or managing the game, IS a big deal. It has been a big deal for decades and decades, so much so that a warning against it is embalzoned in every clubhouse, from the lowest level of the minor leagues to the majors. The fact that you consider it not to be a big deal is fine, but that is simply your opinion of how gambling on the game should be viewed, and not supported by the reality of the rules in place. While you may personally find "druggies, drunks and felons" equally or even more offensive than gambling on the game of baseball is yet another opinion, but the game of baseball makes a significant distinction between such behaviors, primarily because one has a direct effect on the integrity of the game and the institution of baseball itself, while the other does not. If the public learns that outcomes are fixed, or that bookmakers are involved in the results, the game of baseball loses all credibility, a much more severe effect than someone failing a drug test or even breaking the law.
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.
First off, I am missing nothing. I get it. You're not supposed to bet on baseball if you play the game professionally.
My contention is that in all probability there are others currently in the Hall who have done so, but either simply weren't caught or because of their legendary status and/or in an attempt to save face for the sport it was ignored or swept under the rug. Rose however became the target of a vengeful commissioner on a mission to make his transgression a big deal.
I acknowledge that he will likely not make the Hall in his lifetime, but he should and eventually will be there. As it should also be with Joe Jackson, who was a victim of guilt by association and his own naiveté-his WS record showed that he didn't sandbag anything. But I digress.
I'm done here. Have a nice weekend.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
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.
<< <i>You misunderstand my position. I'm not trying to forward the position that Pete never gambled; I'm sure he did, and that was leveraged against him by Giamatti et. al. >>
I think I misunderstand your position because you won't state it. You said Rose was "forced" to agree to a lifetime ban. What that means is that he must have feared consequences even worse than being banned from baseball and the HOF, else there's no reason at all to agree to it. The question I asked, that you dodged, was what do you think Rose did that was even worse than what was made public, and what were the consequences you think he feared so much that he agreed to be banned form baseball and the HOF for eternity? I'll understand your position if you'll answer that question.
All systems are flawed, doesn't mean we still don't try to follow the rules as they are set down. Doesn't mean these systems are worthless.
I apologize if my statements offended you telephoto, they weren't really a dig, I simply feel that Pete broke the #1 rule and got caught. In any system with rules and punishments, breaking the most important rule usually gets the most severe punishment.
<< <i>Plenty of people are "forced" into jail when they are caught breaking the law, ... >>
Yes, but the way that works is that a defendant is "forced" to plead guilty to a crime in exchange for a certain punishment by being threatened with an even greater punishment if he doesn't agree. People do not agree to the death penalty without a trial, because they have nothing at all to lose by going to trial. Rose agreed to a lifetime ban, which necessarily means that he feared an even greater punishment than that. But MLB's equivalent of the death penalty is a lifetime ban - they have no worse punishment to impose. So why did Rose agree to the lifetime ban? I can think of a few possibilities, and all of them point to Rose never, ever being enshrined in the HOF. Asking the HOF to admit Rose is like asking someone if you can give them cancer; they're never going to agree to it, and they'd be fools if they ever did. Rose is a cancer on baseball, and it's much better off if he's removed than if he's permanently placed in a position of honor.
<< <i>
<< <i>You misunderstand my position. I'm not trying to forward the position that Pete never gambled; I'm sure he did, and that was leveraged against him by Giamatti et. al. >>
I think I misunderstand your position because you won't state it. You said Rose was "forced" to agree to a lifetime ban. What that means is that he must have feared consequences even worse than being banned from baseball and the HOF, else there's no reason at all to agree to it. The question I asked, that you dodged, was what do you think Rose did that was even worse than what was made public, and what were the consequences you think he feared so much that he agreed to be banned form baseball and the HOF for eternity? I'll understand your position if you'll answer that question. >>
Wow, some here are fixated on the word "forced". I could have as easily said "maneuvered into", which in retrospect is likely a more accurate term.
"...What that means is that he must have feared consequences even worse than being banned from baseball and the HOF, else there's no reason at all to agree to it."
Possibly, but in the end it's still speculation. We weren't at the meeting so we'll never know the specifics. It was clear that Giamatti wouldn't accept anything less than a lifetime ban and Rose likely thought that even with the ban, he figured at some point (with a new commissioner), he'd have a more sympathetic ear and perhaps get it reversed down the line, much like those with a life sentence get parole hearings after a given period. However, again he gambled and lost...after Giamatti's untimely death there were undoubtedly many who thought that reversing or modifying the ban would be considered by some as an insult to Giamatti's legacy as commissioner. Now, enough time has gone by that apparently such positions have softened; as mentioned by Grote, he's likely going to be at the All Star festivities (no doubt due to the location!)...perhaps this is the positive sign Rose supporters have been seeking. If they want him to keep out of the business, that's one thing-but continuing to deny him the Hall for his contributions to the game is an extreme unfairness if not a travesty IMO.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
<< <i>Wow, some here are fixated on the word "forced". I could have as easily said "maneuvered into", which in retrospect is likely a more accurate term. >>
So, you understand now why I didn't understand your position? I'll assume that this is your final answer and respond accordingly; if you change your position yet again, I'll just give up.
<< <i>It was clear that Giamatti wouldn't accept anything less than a lifetime ban and Rose likely thought that even with the ban, he figured at some point (with a new commissioner), he'd have a more sympathetic ear and perhaps get it reversed down the line, much like those with a life sentence get parole hearings after a given period. However, again he gambled and lost... >>
If it was clear that no matter what Rose said or did Giamatti was going to impose a lifetime ban (a death sentence), and if Rose's hope was that someday that decision would be reversed, then the question still remains - why agree to it? You concede that his acceptance would have no bearing on what Giamatti would do - the lifetime ban was inevitable in any event - so Rose accepting or objecting to the lifetime ban could only be intended to influence those in the future who would be in a position to reverse the ban. And if you are one of those future people, what would make you more inclined to lift a "lifetime" ban - if the person involved agreed that a lifetime ban was a fair and just punishment, or if he fought against it as too harsh? The real question is what did Pete Rose stand to gain by agreeing to a lifetime ban, and it's the question that you keep dancing around. Since a lifetime ban is the most serious punishment at MLB's disposal, the obvious inference is that Rose feared punishment from another source.
Asking what Rose "stood to gain" by agreeing to the ban is like asking what a convicted felon stands to gain when faced with a hanging judge. He had nothing to gain, but there were no alternatives. You obviously think that Giamatti had something else more damning on him, perhaps something criminal. My response to that is that if he did, he'd have taken it all the way. He hated Rose's guts, plus willful concealment of known criminal activity would damage both Giamatti's rep and that of the sport. He'd never do that unless he was stupid, and Giamatti was far from stupid, IMO at least. Is this a sufficient answer or am I still "dancing around"?
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
<< <i>Asking what Rose "stood to gain" by agreeing to the ban is like asking what a convicted felon stands to gain when faced with a hanging judge. He had nothing to gain, but there were no alternatives. You obviously think that Giamatti had something else more damning on him, perhaps something criminal. My response to that is that if he did, he'd have taken it all the way. He hated Rose's guts, plus willful concealment of known criminal activity would damage both Giamatti's rep and that of the sport. He'd never do that unless he was stupid, and Giamatti was far from stupid, IMO at least. Is this a sufficient answer or am I still "dancing around"? >>
No, it's not like a convicted felon, unless you're saying that the felon says "sure, I agree to this hanging". But he never would. The chance of escaping the hanging may be very low if you fight it, but it's non-existent if you don't, so nobody simply agrees to it. To say "there were no alternatives" is simply incorrect - the alternative was not to agree to it, to make the case that what you did wasn't serious enough to merit such a harsh punishment, and hope that one day people see it your way. When "your way" is that what you did was so heinous that a lifetime ban from baseball is the proper punishment, then there's nothing for people to see differently in the future. The one thing on which everyone agreed was that a lifetime ban from baseball was appropriate; there is no longer an opposing POV to even consider so nobody ever will.
I'm open to other opinions, but the most likely cause seems to me to be that there was evidence that Rose threw baseball games. That is both a crime, and a situation that Giamatti would not have wanted to be made public. Getting Rose to agree to go away - forever - is a reasonable compromise in that situation. If there's another scenario in which both Rose and Giamatti benefited from the agreement that was reached - what is it? Until you explain how Rose reasonably believed that he was better off agreeing to the ban than not agreeing to the ban, yes, you're still dancing.
Rose's ego was as big as all outdoors. For all anyone knows he might have thought that the whole "ban" thing would be reconsidered at some point because of his greatness and that was a better option with a shorter news cycle attached rather than fighting longer and having himself publicly dragged through the mud any further. Or maybe you're right, he threw games and Giamatti concealed the evidence of this in exchange for the ban. I disagree because a) he hated Rose and would crush him if he could imo and b) it might also have gotten Giamatti in trouble personally by said concealment. Neither of us will ever know the truth it appears, so continuing to argue it seems pointless. Pete bet on baseball, he's finally owned up to it, and as to him throwing games...all I can say is show proof or it didn't happen. Rose haters have had a good couple of decades to come up with said proof so I'm leaning towards the latter.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
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.