PDA

View Full Version : Three Recent Articles By John Erardi



Ron Madden
01-22-2012, 03:55 AM
Here are three recent stories by John Erardi. Two are short feel good pieces, the third is a bit longer and thought provoking.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20120119/SPT04/301190224


http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20120117/SPT04/301170121


http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20120111/COL19/301110131


Just thought the members of RZ might enjoy reading this and that maybe the third article would spark some interesting discussion.

RedsManRick
01-22-2012, 06:48 AM
Interesting, I'm not a fan of trying to pick and choose among the known and suspected cheaters, but Erardi's attempt is as good as any I've seen.

Personally, I'd still base my vote on what happened on the field and the narrative history of the game handle the rest.

jojo
01-22-2012, 09:54 AM
Any HOF without Bonds (elected on the first ballot), should probably just be shut down and mothballed because it is irrelevant.

Any argument that says Bonds isn't a HOFer but AROD is, well, it's just the kind of logic that would lead to the the HOF being irrelevant.

In short, baseball writers can't be trusted with the HOF. We need a new system for inducting players.

_Sir_Charles_
01-22-2012, 11:39 AM
I must admit, that third article was a shock. A writer actually managed to sum up exactly how I feel on this topic. He even went so far as to name the exact same people I feel are out, border-line in and in. Well thought out and informative. Nice piece.

I will also add that while there are players I'd prefer be left out, that system will never fly. RMR has it right, base admission solely on their on-the-field performance and take out the character clause because it only muddies the waters. I will add this last note though, if they DO admit the steroid users into the hall....Rose damned well better get in too.

dougdirt
01-22-2012, 03:54 PM
I will add this last note though, if they DO admit the steroid users into the hall....Rose damned well better get in too.

Disagree. Strongly.

RANDY IN INDY
01-22-2012, 08:09 PM
Rose had s Hall of Fame career. Nothing he did affected anything he accomplished as a player.

MWM
01-22-2012, 08:52 PM
You can't keep known steroid users out while allowing ARod in. This is not that hard a concept.

dougdirt
01-22-2012, 09:00 PM
Rose had s Hall of Fame career. Nothing he did affected anything he accomplished as a player.

Except that part where he gambled on the game....

oneupper
01-22-2012, 09:18 PM
Any HOF without Bonds (elected on the first ballot), should probably just be shut down and mothballed because it is irrelevant.

Any argument that says Bonds isn't a HOFer but AROD is, well, it's just the kind of logic that would lead to the the HOF being irrelevant.

In short, baseball writers can't be trusted with the HOF. We need a new system for inducting players.

The HOF doesn't need Bonds, just like it didn't need Rose. So, Bonds and his tainted records and inflated head are left out. Big deal. Sooner or later it will be a historical anecdote.
Years ago the argument was "you can't leave the hit record holder out". Well they did and nothing happened.
Now it will be "you can't leave the HR king out". Well they can.

And guys like Larkin will be inducted and proud to be in the HOF. Even if Bonds and Rose aren't there (maybe even MORE so).

edabbs44
01-22-2012, 09:23 PM
The HOF doesn't need Bonds, just like it didn't need Rose. So, Bonds and his tainted records and inflated head are left out. Big deal. Sooner or later it will be a historical anecdote.
Years ago the argument was "you can't leave the hit record holder out". Well they did and nothing happened.
Now it will be "you can't leave the HR king out". Well they can.

And guys like Larkin will be inducted and proud to be in the HOF. Even if Bonds and Rose aren't there (maybe even MORE so).

What Rose did also didn't help him get his record. What Bonds did absolutely helped him get his.

Ron Madden
01-22-2012, 09:33 PM
You can't keep known steroid users out while allowing ARod in. This is not that hard a concept.


Agreed. If you keep one steroid user out it seems to me that you'd keep all steroid users out.

jojo
01-22-2012, 09:34 PM
The HOF doesn't need Bonds, just like it didn't need Rose. So, Bonds and his tainted records and inflated head are left out. Big deal. Sooner or later it will be a historical anecdote.
Years ago the argument was "you can't leave the hit record holder out". Well they did and nothing happened.
Now it will be "you can't leave the HR king out". Well they can.

And guys like Larkin will be inducted and proud to be in the HOF. Even if Bonds and Rose aren't there (maybe even MORE so).

I could care less about a history museum that largely is shaped by a fanatical desire to uphold the sanctity of a myth.

That Rose isn't in the HOF is dumb. That a whole era will be characterized by arbitrary guesswork makes the Hall invalid as a vehicle to tell the history of the game.

Ron Madden
01-22-2012, 09:38 PM
Any HOF without Bonds (elected on the first ballot), should probably just be shut down and mothballed because it is irrelevant.

Any argument that says Bonds isn't a HOFer but AROD is, well, it's just the kind of logic that would lead to the the HOF being irrelevant.

In short, baseball writers can't be trusted with the HOF. We need a new system for inducting players.

I agree jojo but right now I don't know where we would start in incorporating a new system.

RANDY IN INDY
01-22-2012, 09:48 PM
Except that part where he gambled on the game....

That did nothing to affect his on field performance. He didn't cheat to put up the numbers. Hall of Fame player.

edabbs44
01-22-2012, 09:52 PM
I could care less about a history museum that largely is shaped by a fanatical desire to uphold the sanctity of a myth.

That Rose isn't in the HOF is dumb. That a whole era will be characterized by arbitrary guesswork makes the Hall invalid as a vehicle to tell the history of the game.

The HOF's job isn't to tell the history of the game.

jojo
01-22-2012, 10:03 PM
The HOF's job isn't to tell the history of the game.

If its not a history museum than its pretty much irrelevant. It's just a collection of memorabilia with some plaques hanging on the wall.

edabbs44
01-22-2012, 10:08 PM
If its not a history museum than its pretty much irrelevant. It's just a collection of memorabilia with some plaques hanging on the wall.

It's the highest honor a player can earn.

jojo
01-22-2012, 10:11 PM
It's the highest honor a player can earn.

Big deal really because the context is tainted by the myth.

edabbs44
01-22-2012, 10:16 PM
Big deal really because the context is tainted by the myth.

What's the myth, exactly?

westofyou
01-22-2012, 10:26 PM
The HOF's job isn't to tell the history of the game.

Really?

Because besides what displays to the public is the most impressive collection of baseball artifacts in the world, numerous scholars target that cache to do exactly what you say their job isn't.

Tell the games history, preserve it and make it available to the public.

edabbs44
01-22-2012, 10:32 PM
Really?

Because besides what displays to the public is the most impressive collection of baseball artifacts in the world, numerous scholars target that cache to do exactly what you say their job isn't.

Tell the games history, preserve it and make it available to the public.

The world doesn't need Barry Bonds to be inducted into the HOF in order to know the history of the game. He isnt being stricken from the every book, website and person's memory.

RANDY IN INDY
01-22-2012, 10:42 PM
Really?

Because besides what displays to the public is the most impressive collection of baseball artifacts in the world, numerous scholars target that cache to do exactly what you say their job isn't.

Tell the games history, preserve it and make it available to the public.

:beerme:

George Anderson
01-22-2012, 10:51 PM
I don't have a horse in this fight but Erardi's comments that Joe Jackson "loafed" after a couple of balls in the outfield seems kinda flaky. Joe threw out five baserunners, fielded 1000%, and, handled thirty chances in the outfield with no errors. If Jackson was trying to throw the series with his glove he did a very poor job of doing it.

RedlegJake
01-22-2012, 11:04 PM
The HoF doesn't strike Barry Bonds, or Rose, or Shoeless Joe from their archives, or their records. Only their plaque from the walls. They still collect artifacts from their playing days, interviews, first hand accounts, photos, etc. The Hall is the premier repository of baseball history in the world. They are very much a museum with the same charge of scholarship, research and dissemination that any quality museum has. There is a distinct separation of the Hall of Fame as a scholarly museum and as a vehicle for honoring players, managers and writers. The fame and draw of the second part pays the freight for the more important work of the first part.

The honor of induction, therefore, imo, can be judged on the merit of character insofar as it affected the game. Those denied induction, like Rose, or possibly Bonds as the future can only tell, will still be in the records and artifacts and histories maintained at the Hall. Their stories, and the reasons why these obviously great players haven't been enshrined are important and hardly ignored by anyone who does research beyond a casual walk through.

I think I'm in the camp that thinks Bonds and Clemens and others painted with the same steroids brush belong but with plaques that point out that their records are tainted. My biggest problem would be in selecting players like Sosa who I do not think would have made the Hall without steroids, also Palmeiro, and possibly McGwire whose health may have precluded a long enough career if he had not used steroids. For me the great players of the late 80s and 90s are all suspect with only a few exceptions like Junior. Baseball has its deadball era with its recognized differences in records and play. Perhaps it should recognize its "steroid era" with its own set of records separate from the rest.

dougdirt
01-22-2012, 11:05 PM
That did nothing to affect his on field performance. He didn't cheat to put up the numbers. Hall of Fame player.

He didn't cheat to put up his numbers. He did break a rule that got him banned from the game forever and if you think that the lifelong gambler only started doing so on baseball once he was a manager, well I don't know what to tell you. Dude thought he was bigger than the rules of the game. He wasn't.

Ron Madden
01-22-2012, 11:14 PM
The HoF doesn't strike Barry Bonds, or Rose, or Shoeless Joe from their archives, or their records. Only their plaque from the walls. They still collect artifacts from their playing days, interviews, first hand accounts, photos, etc. The Hall is the premier repository of baseball history in the world. They are very much a museum with the same charge of scholarship, research and dissemination that any quality museum has. There is a distinct separation of the Hall of Fame as a scholarly museum and as a vehicle for honoring players, managers and writers. The fame and draw of the second part pays the freight for the more important work of the first part.

The honor of induction, therefore, imo, can be judged on the merit of character insofar as it affected the game. Those denied induction, like Rose, or possibly Bonds as the future can only tell, will still be in the records and artifacts and histories maintained at the Hall. Their stories, and the reasons why these obviously great players haven't been enshrined are important and hardly ignored by anyone who does research beyond a casual walk through.

I think I'm in the camp that thinks Bonds and Clemens and others painted with the same steroids brush belong but with plaques that point out that their records are tainted. My biggest problem would be in selecting players like Sosa who I do not think would have made the Hall without steroids, also Palmeiro, and possibly McGwire whose health may have precluded a long enough career if he had not used steroids. For me the great players of the late 80s and 90s are all suspect with only a few exceptions like Junior. Baseball has its deadball era with its recognized differences in records and play. Perhaps it should recognize its "steroid era" with its own set of records separate from the rest.


Nice post Jake, wish RZ had a like button like facebook.

Scrap Irony
01-22-2012, 11:41 PM
Personally, I'd put them all in-- Jackson, Rose, Bonds, Clemens, Palmeiro-- all of them. But with stipulations.

Their plaques would have lifetime statistics, a brief biography, and the reasons behind the hesitance to vote for them.

You put all of them in their own wing-- ARod included, when he gets there. Call it the Shadow Wing. Don't allow them to speak at the ceremony. Simply read their lifetime statistics and the front of the plaque. Then go on to the next guy.

If they didn't like that option, they would be given the option of being elected-- perhaps-- into the Immortal Wing, complete with speech and all the hoopla associated with it.

defender
01-23-2012, 12:07 AM
But when there is a vacuum in leadership (as happened in baseball in the 1990s) that allows for the widespread and blatant use of steroids - that, in effect, destroyed one of the truly great threads of the game (records), what are the writers supposed to do?


I don't know what they should have done, but what they did do, was write about the players exploits on the field every day and then cash their paychecks every two weeks.


I’ve long written that, in my opinion, greenies don’t significantly alter who you, as a human being, were created to be. Steroids obviously do.



Steroids are not a black and white topic. There are many things baseball players do(surgery, supplements, drugs) that alter their bodies. A lot of modern science has been trying to replace what our body stops doing as it ages.

It is easier for Bud Selig, MLB and many sportswriters to call players cheaters and push an episode they all profited from under the rug, than actually discuss the facts.

RANDY IN INDY
01-23-2012, 07:24 AM
He didn't cheat to put up his numbers. He did break a rule that got him banned from the game forever and if you think that the lifelong gambler only started doing so on baseball once he was a manager, well I don't know what to tell you. Dude thought he was bigger than the rules of the game. He wasn't.

Doesn't change one thing he did on the field. Was a tremendous player and his stats speak for themselves. Hall of Fame career. If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you.

Caveman Techie
01-23-2012, 08:16 AM
Doesn't change one thing he did on the field. Was a tremendous player and his stats speak for themselves. Hall of Fame career. If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you.

Sorry, but Rose broke the #1 rule in baseball. The punishment for which is a lifetime ban. Supporters of Pete can try to twist and turn it all they want but at the end of the day, Pete looked at the rule in the clubhouse everyday and decided that it didn't apply to him. I love Pete Rose to death, I loved watching him play, I still get a tear in my eye whenever I see footage of him breaking the record. However that doesn't change the fact that he broke a rule and now he has to accept the punishment for his actions.

After Pete dies if they want to reinstate him and then put him in the hall, I would be fine with that, because IIRC the punishment is just "lifetime", not "forever".

Roy Tucker
01-23-2012, 08:45 AM
Re: history

Looks like it is both historical and honor the players. From the HoF homepage.



The National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum is an independent, non-profit educational institution dedicated to fostering an appreciation of the historical development of baseball and its impact on our culture by collecting, preserving, exhibiting and interpreting its collections for a global audience as well as honoring those who have made outstanding contributions to our national pastime.

RANDY IN INDY
01-23-2012, 12:07 PM
Sorry, but Rose broke the #1 rule in baseball. The punishment for which is a lifetime ban. Supporters of Pete can try to twist and turn it all they want but at the end of the day, Pete looked at the rule in the clubhouse everyday and decided that it didn't apply to him. I love Pete Rose to death, I loved watching him play, I still get a tear in my eye whenever I see footage of him breaking the record. However that doesn't change the fact that he broke a rule and now he has to accept the punishment for his actions.

After Pete dies if they want to reinstate him and then put him in the hall, I would be fine with that, because IIRC the punishment is just "lifetime", not "forever".

All I have said in any of my posts is that the career of Pete Rose, on the field, is a Hall of Fame career. Nothing can say otherwise. Whether he gets in or not is not up to me or anyone here that does not have a HOF vote.

dougdirt
01-23-2012, 01:33 PM
All I have said in any of my posts is that the career of Pete Rose, on the field, is a Hall of Fame career. Nothing can say otherwise. Whether he gets in or not is not up to me or anyone here that does not have a HOF vote.

Even if someone here had a HOF vote, it still wouldn't be up to them because they can't vote for him as it currently stands.

RANDY IN INDY
01-23-2012, 02:24 PM
Even if someone here had a HOF vote, it still wouldn't be up to them because they can't vote for him as it currently stands.

And it really still changes nothing that I have said. His playing career speaks for itself.

dougdirt
01-23-2012, 02:36 PM
And it really still changes nothing that I have said. His playing career speaks for itself.

It kind of does though, because you said if you let steroid guys in, then you must let Pete in. One thing gets you suspended for 50 games (now), where as the other gets you a lifetime ban. The two things, from a rules standpoint, aren't close to comparable.

RANDY IN INDY
01-23-2012, 02:43 PM
It kind of does though, because you said if you let steroid guys in, then you must let Pete in. One thing gets you suspended for 50 games (now), where as the other gets you a lifetime ban. The two things, from a rules standpoint, aren't close to comparable.

Where did I say that?

dougdirt
01-23-2012, 02:48 PM
Where did I say that?

You didn't. I had confused sir charles posts with yours on the first page.

Sea Ray
01-23-2012, 02:51 PM
What a lot of baseball fans, particularly in Cincinnati, still don't get is that baseball treats gambling unlike any other transgression, including steroids. As much as much as fans try, you can't compare the two until MLB re-writes their rules. There is a clearly written rule that defines the penalties for gambling and that's not the same rule that applies to other wrongdoings.

So if you want steroid folks to be on a level with gambling, you've got to suggest a rule change first. So here goes:

Do you want the lifetime ban lifted from gambling or do you want it added to steroids?

Roy Tucker
01-23-2012, 03:07 PM
Just throwing this out there...

I don't think a gambling scandal would be as damaging to baseball as much now as it would have been in the 20's and 30's. For one thing, players make waaaaay more money now and I'd say the temptation is much less to accede to a gambler. Back then, ballplayers made about as much as normal people and the temptation was greater.

And I think its a different world now. We are all more jaded. If there was a gambling scandal, there would be a big whoop-dee-doo made, but I don't think it would be nearly as damaging to the game as it would have back in the day. And I think that's why Landis made "getting caught gambling" the poison pill that it still is today.

Now, its a whole different question about equating steroids and gambling. And gambling is still a damaging thing. But I don't think it would be fatal.

Sea Ray
01-23-2012, 03:22 PM
Just throwing this out there...

I don't think a gambling scandal would be as damaging to baseball as much now as it would have been in the 20's and 30's. For one thing, players make waaaaay more money now and I'd say the temptation is much less to accede to a gambler. Back then, ballplayers made about as much as normal people and the temptation was greater.

And I think its a different world now. We are all more jaded. If there was a gambling scandal, there would be a big whoop-dee-doo made, but I don't think it would be nearly as damaging to the game as it would have back in the day. And I think that's why Landis made "getting caught gambling" the poison pill that it still is today.

Now, its a whole different question about equating steroids and gambling. And gambling is still a damaging thing. But I don't think it would be fatal.

So where do you stand on the automatic lifetime ban for betting on MLB games? Are you saying that you want that rule pulled?

Roy Tucker
01-23-2012, 03:45 PM
So where do you stand on the automatic lifetime ban for betting on MLB games? Are you saying that you want that rule pulled?

Ehhh. I think its a bit harsh. Back in the day, Alex Karras and Paul Horning got caught betting on NFL games and they were suspended for a year and it didn't destroy the NFL. I think something along those lines. 1-3 year suspension. Something with some real teeth in it but not a lifetime ban. The 1919 Black Sox scandal nearly destroyed the game, but I don't think it would now. Its a whole different age and different circumstances.

Having said that, I also think in the modern-day game if you got caught betting on games, GMs would think very long and very hard about hiring you again. It's pretty much a career-killer no matter what.

Having said all that, I think there is zero chance for MLB to lessen their penalties for gambling. What is the motivation?

My major beef is the BBWAA taking guys off the ballot who are lifetime suspended. Let the writers vote on who gets in, banned or not.

_Sir_Charles_
01-23-2012, 04:16 PM
It kind of does though, because you said if you let steroid guys in, then you must let Pete in. One thing gets you suspended for 50 games (now), where as the other gets you a lifetime ban. The two things, from a rules standpoint, aren't close to comparable.

Yes, it was me who said that. And you've sort of pointed out the main problem. It's a 50 game suspension now, what is it for the second offense? The third? Because how many times did these guys do this? For how many years? Just because it's the current rule, doesn't make it right. I don't care how people try to spin the situation, the bottom line is that they're both forms of cheating. One is trying to influence the outcome of the game for monetary benefit, the other is trying to influence the outcome of the game for personal benefit and performance. They're both moral issues. Where I have a problem is when they point to moral issues but ignore others (which I, personally, consider to be FAR worse than gambling or even steriods). I just don't think MLB should be policing moral issues. And the "character clause" is something that has no place in the HoF because it simply isn't used properly. It's fine to leave out a guy who took steroids, but it's fine to let in a guy who used cocaine? It's fine to leave out a guy who gambled, but it's fine to let in a guy who beat his wife? It's fine to leave out a guy who may have assisted in fixing a game, but it's fine to let in a guy who was a vile human being and who would go so far as to charge into the stands to beat up a fan or purposefully sharpen his spikes in order to hurt opposing players? Yeah, baseball has a finely honed morality compass. :rolleyes:

IMO, the best solution to the HoF is to ignore the personalities and character issues and the off the field questions and simply focus the decision making process on the stats and only the stats. If you want to put some stuff on their plaque about the off the field issues, or character stuff...fine. But if their numbers are worthy, let 'em in.

REDREAD
01-23-2012, 04:21 PM
If its not a history museum than its pretty much irrelevant. It's just a collection of memorabilia with some plaques hanging on the wall.

Yep, it's a glorifed tourist trap.
No offense to the people that like it, but I can't see getting worked up over who gets in and who doesn't. It's as arbitrary as my personal list of the 100 top players of all time.. It's silly to make a museum some kind of vehicle for moral punishment/disciplinary action.

RANDY IN INDY
01-23-2012, 04:25 PM
Anyone who saw Rose play over the course of his career knows that he was a HOF caliber player. The fact that he doesn't have a plaque on the wall doesn't change the fact that he was that caliber of player or one of the all time greats of the game.

_Sir_Charles_
01-23-2012, 04:26 PM
What a lot of baseball fans, particularly in Cincinnati, still don't get is that baseball treats gambling unlike any other transgression, including steroids. As much as much as fans try, you can't compare the two until MLB re-writes their rules. There is a clearly written rule that defines the penalties for gambling and that's not the same rule that applies to other wrongdoings.

So if you want steroid folks to be on a level with gambling, you've got to suggest a rule change first. So here goes:

Do you want the lifetime ban lifted from gambling or do you want it added to steroids?

It IS added to steroids.

1st failed test: 50 game suspension
2nd failed test: 100 game suspension
3rd failed test: lifetime suspension

The problem is that the tests suck and you can't go BACK and test players in the past. The problem was ignored for over a decade and now we're stuck. So screw it, base admission on stats alone and post a remark on the plaque. The ban for life should be a ban from playing the game professionally (or working in it). The HoF is a museum first and foremost. Leaving them out of there is just failing to acknowledge a part of the game's history.

Hoosier Red
01-23-2012, 04:44 PM
Yes, it was me who said that. And you've sort of pointed out the main problem. It's a 50 game suspension now, what is it for the second offense? The third? Because how many times did these guys do this? For how many years? Just because it's the current rule, doesn't make it right. I don't care how people try to spin the situation, the bottom line is that they're both forms of cheating. One is trying to influence the outcome of the game for monetary benefit, the other is trying to influence the outcome of the game for personal benefit and performance. .

That's actually one reason why I understand the position of "A-Rod in, Bonds/Clemens Out" a little bit more. A-Rod was found guilty by MLB and paid the price. Bonds and Clemens did not.

It's perhaps unfair that he did it in an era where he was more likely to get caught and there was an adequate system for dealing with the transgression. But if you decide to break the rules, you don't get to complain about selective enforcement imo.


They're both moral issues. Where I have a problem is when they point to moral issues but ignore others (which I, personally, consider to be FAR worse than gambling or even steriods). I just don't think MLB should be policing moral issues. And the "character clause" is something that has no place in the HoF because it simply isn't used properly. It's fine to leave out a guy who took steroids, but it's fine to let in a guy who used cocaine? It's fine to leave out a guy who gambled, but it's fine to let in a guy who beat his wife? It's fine to leave out a guy who may have assisted in fixing a game, but it's fine to let in a guy who was a vile human being and who would go so far as to charge into the stands to beat up a fan or purposefully sharpen his spikes in order to hurt opposing players? Yeah, baseball has a finely honed morality compass. :rolleyes:

IMO, the best solution to the HoF is to ignore the personalities and character issues and the off the field questions and simply focus the decision making process on the stats and only the stats. If you want to put some stuff on their plaque about the off the field issues, or character stuff...fine. But if their numbers are worthy, let 'em in

I don't disagree that writers really shouldn't be judging character, but there's a difference in how character and moral compass applies to life in general and how it applies within a specific sport.

A lot of times those character traits overlap, a lot of times they don't. But I don't think you should confuse the two.

If I did trust the writers to accurately assess character,(i don't) I'd hope they'd know the difference between someone who played the game with a high moral character and did not try to parse out those who didn't live their lives with the same moral character.

Sea Ray
01-23-2012, 05:21 PM
It IS added to steroids.

1st failed test: 50 game suspension
2nd failed test: 100 game suspension
3rd failed test: lifetime suspension

The problem is that the tests suck and you can't go BACK and test players in the past. The problem was ignored for over a decade and now we're stuck. So screw it, base admission on stats alone and post a remark on the plaque. The ban for life should be a ban from playing the game professionally (or working in it). The HoF is a museum first and foremost. Leaving them out of there is just failing to acknowledge a part of the game's history.

You're right. I should have stated a first offense because as you astutely state, a 3rd offense is a lifetime ban

Sea Ray
01-23-2012, 05:23 PM
My major beef is the BBWAA taking guys off the ballot who are lifetime suspended. Let the writers vote on who gets in, banned or not.

I understand your point. Im my opinion the Hall is a part of baseball and a ban should include it as well. Of course I know folks' opinions on that vary a great deal

remdog
01-23-2012, 05:33 PM
I've gotta' agree with everything Randy wrote about Pete Rose.

Rem

Caveman Techie
01-23-2012, 05:34 PM
I understand your point. Im my opinion the Hall is a part of baseball and a ban should include it as well. Of course I know folks' opinions on that vary a great deal

It is stated right in the eligibility rules for voting for a player rule 3 subsection E:

Any player on Baseball's ineligible list shall not be an eligible candidate.

It would take a rule change to allow the ineligible candidates be placed on the ballot. Personally I don't see that happening.

*Sorry quoted the wrong message

mth123
01-23-2012, 07:55 PM
It is stated right in the eligibility rules for voting for a player rule 3 subsection E:

Any player on Baseball's ineligible list shall not be an eligible candidate.

It would take a rule change to allow the ineligible candidates be placed on the ballot. Personally I don't see that happening.

*Sorry quoted the wrong message

Of course that Rule was instituted right after Rose was banned.

IMO, there is a huge distinction between gambling on games and throwing games. Throwing games should carry a lifetime ban. Gambling something less IMO.

Caveman Techie
01-24-2012, 06:27 AM
Of course that Rule was instituted right after Rose was banned.

IMO, there is a huge distinction between gambling on games and throwing games. Throwing games should carry a lifetime ban. Gambling something less IMO.

Gambling led to throwing of games. The reason the punishment is so severe is, the Black Sox scandal almost destroyed baseball. The rule was instituted and posted in every locker room. Pete had no choice but to see it, and yet he still decided that "he was special" and the rules didn't apply to him. Well, they do. Now accept the punishment. Does it suck for us fans? Yep! Does it suck that a HOF career didn't result in induction? Yep! But in the end this lays totally at the feet of Pete Rose.

I can't remember which publication it was, but I remember reading about how Horse racing used to be the top sport in America. That is until all the gambling led to fixing of races and jockeys throwing the races and such. Now who even bothers to watch the Kentucky Derby?