PDA

View Full Version : 1st time on the HOF ballot stars 2013, will they let the junkies in?



icehole3
07-23-2012, 10:47 AM
:)

I've got no problem with them letting all the junkies in as long as they let Pete Rose in. Here is the list of newbies. Who gets in?

Craig Biggio
Curt Schilling
Sammy Sosa
Mike Piazza
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Reggie Sanders
Tony Batista
Sandy Alomar
Steve Finley
David Wells
Kenny Lofton
Shawn Green
Roberto Hernandez
Jose Mesa

http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/hof_2013.shtml

bucksfan2
07-23-2012, 10:54 AM
:)

I've got no problem with them letting all the junkies in as long as they let Pete Rose in. Here is the list of newbies. Who gets in?

Craig Biggio
Curt Schilling
Sammy Sosa
Mike Piazza
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Reggie Sanders
Tony Batista
Sandy Alomar
Steve Finley
David Wells
Kenny Lofton
Shawn Green
Roberto Hernandez
Jose Mesa

http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/hof_2013.shtml

IMO Biggio, Schilling, and Piazza are HOF who will largely escape the steroid conversation. The only guy who I "think" may have had some steroid ties is Piazza but for the most part he has been considered clean.

Bumstead
07-23-2012, 10:57 AM
Biggio and Piazza in my opinion.

WildcatFan
07-23-2012, 10:57 AM
I'm OK with it too, as long as there's mention of juicing in their bios. It's the price you pay for cheating. Same with Pete. Hit King, banned from baseball for gambling. Both contributed to his "fame."

As far as that list goes, I think the following should make it:

Piazza
Bonds
Clemens

I think Piazza will be the only one to actually make it though.

jojo
07-23-2012, 11:00 AM
I've been pretty vociferous about this issue in the past and don't really want to start an argument but I can't rationalize the existence of the HOF if Bonds and Clemens arent elected into it. They were the two best players of the generation and it wasn't even close.

WildcatFan
07-23-2012, 11:02 AM
I've been pretty vociferous about this issue in the past and don't really want to start an argument but I can't rationalize the existence of the HOF if Bonds and Clemens arent elected into it. They were the two best players of the generation and it wasn't even close.

Completely agree. Keeping those guys out of the Hall is just like the NCAA vacating a school's wins. Pretending like it didn't happen doesn't fix things--it just makes you look petty.

Big Klu
07-23-2012, 11:10 AM
Biggio has his ticket punched. 3000 hits and played for only one team.

It's funny, because I never thought of him as a HOF player during his career.

Bumstead
07-23-2012, 11:12 AM
Biggio has his ticket punched. 3000 hits and played for only one team.

It's funny, because I never thought of him as a HOF player during his career.

Yeah, I agree. Didn't he break the record for HBP's as well?

Bum

Scrap Irony
07-23-2012, 11:12 AM
Lofton will be an interesting choice. Three HoF members and Tim Raines in his similar hitters resume, plus he was a multiple Gold-Glove winning CF. Played on some really good teams, too, with a bunch of playoff experience.

I think he falls just short, but it'll be interesting to see what happens with him.

I think Piazza and Biggio are in first ballot, with Schilling, Sosa, Bonds and Clemens later being inducted. (Maybe. The BBWAA are notoriously pious about their votes.)

Bumstead
07-23-2012, 11:13 AM
Completely agree. Keeping those guys out of the Hall is just like the NCAA vacating a school's wins. Pretending like it didn't happen doesn't fix things--it just makes you look petty.

I would rather "look petty" to you than to have those 2 soil the HOF.

Bum

Scrap Irony
07-23-2012, 11:14 AM
Soil the Hall of Fame?

Get back to me after you've looked up the resumes of Napoleon Lajoie, Frank Chance, and Ty Cobb, among others.

lidspinner
07-23-2012, 11:21 AM
its such a long winded and tired argument that really no one wins after the debate has ended...do they belong? dont they belong? like I said, no one really wins this argument because it is more of an opinion than a fact....getting into the HOF is about opinions, not facts.....there is no blueprint to get into the HOF.....so your argument might sound good, but its still an opinion.

I for one have not taken a solid stance on either side yet....I can see both sides to the issue and I cannot firmly say that I feel strong one way or the other just yet....I hate the idea that they get in with an asterik by their name but that might be the only legitimate way to let them in and still please a majority of the HOF'ers that have a big say on what happens....LIke I said, to many differing opinions right now for them to get in this year, IMO.....but we shall see.

Scrap Irony
07-23-2012, 11:26 AM
Let them in, but let their plaques explain how they were viewed by society and baseball writers at the ends of their careers. Mention the steroid scandals. Mention the unprecedented improvement for both late in their careers allegedly brought on by steroid use. Mention BALCO and the Steve McNamee.

I'd let in Palmiero, as well as McGwire and Sosa. ARod and everyone else that might have done 'roids and was outed by the report.

But I'd put that on their plaque. That way, instead of being romanticized as an athlete done wrong, they'll be immortalized as cheats.

Yachtzee
07-23-2012, 11:27 AM
Yeah, I agree. Didn't he break the record for HBP's as well?

Bum

It helped that he was allowed to stand over the plate in full body armor. Always my biggest complaint about Biggio.

_Sir_Charles_
07-23-2012, 11:29 AM
I've been pretty vociferous about this issue in the past and don't really want to start an argument but I can't rationalize the existence of the HOF if Bonds and Clemens arent elected into it. They were the two best players of the generation and it wasn't even close.

I agree. But at the same time I feel similarly to Rose. All time hit leader NOT in the HoF? Beyond silly IMO.

_Sir_Charles_
07-23-2012, 11:30 AM
Let them in, but let their plaques explain how they were viewed by society and baseball writers at the ends of their careers. Mention the steroid scandals. Mention the unprecedented improvement for both late in their careers allegedly brought on by steroid use. Mention BALCO and the Steve McNamee.

I'd let in Palmiero, as well as McGwire and Sosa. ARod and everyone else that might have done 'roids and was outed by the report.

But I'd put that on their plaque. That way, instead of being romanticized as an athlete done wrong, they'll be immortalized as cheats.

I'd also consider not allowing them to do a speech at the induction ceremony.

mdccclxix
07-23-2012, 11:33 AM
From the limitations of their inductions I'm hearing from people here, it sounds like this batch of cheaters are better off inducted when their gone.

cumberlandreds
07-23-2012, 11:37 AM
I'd also consider not allowing them to do a speech at the induction ceremony.

I've always thought with Rose, Bonds,Clemens and some of the other steriod boys that they should be in but without the fanfare. Erect the HOF plaque in the dead of winter on some cold snowy January night. Then release a small blurb in a news release and that would be the end of it. Also on Rose's it should be mentioned that he bet on baseball and was banned for it. For the steriod boys it should be mentioned that they played in an era in which steriod use was rampant and statistics were wildly inflated.

Bumstead
07-23-2012, 11:39 AM
Soil the Hall of Fame?

Get back to me after you've looked up the resumes of Napoleon Lajoie, Frank Chance, and Ty Cobb, among others.

I've read them and I still feel the same. Any other literature that is supposed to change my opinion?

OldXOhio
07-23-2012, 11:52 AM
Let them in, but let their plaques explain how they were viewed by society and baseball writers at the ends of their careers. Mention the steroid scandals. Mention the unprecedented improvement for both late in their careers allegedly brought on by steroid use. Mention BALCO and the Steve McNamee.

I'd let in Palmiero, as well as McGwire and Sosa. ARod and everyone else that might have done 'roids and was outed by the report.

But I'd put that on their plaque. That way, instead of being romanticized as an athlete done wrong, they'll be immortalized as cheats.

And what say you about Peter Edward?

bucksfan2
07-23-2012, 11:56 AM
Lofton will be an interesting choice. Three HoF members and Tim Raines in his similar hitters resume, plus he was a multiple Gold-Glove winning CF. Played on some really good teams, too, with a bunch of playoff experience.

I think he falls just short, but it'll be interesting to see what happens with him.

I think Piazza and Biggio are in first ballot, with Schilling, Sosa, Bonds and Clemens later being inducted. (Maybe. The BBWAA are notoriously pious about their votes.)

When I think of the HOF I think of great players. Guys who were amongst the best in comparison to their peers. Biggio hit the magic number and is assumed clean so he will eventually get it. Piazza will get in but I don't think he will get in on the first ballot. I think while assumed clean the steroid cloud will hover around his head the first year. Schilling was a very good pitcher in his own right but one of the best big game pitches of his era.

I think Clemens will eventually get in. His first half of his career was good enough to warrant the HOF and he has proved his innocence in the courts. Whether or not we believe him he has not been proven to have taken PED's. Bonds has an interesting case. His first half of his career is good enough to get into the HOF. He has pretty much stayed out of the limelight since he retired. I think it will be a long wait but eventually he gets in as well. Sosa doesn't have a chance. Never was a great player until the roid years. You also have the corking of the bat thingy. He should get some credit for helping bring baseball back during the HR chase but if McGwire isn't getting in Sosa won't be close.

In looking over Kenny Loftin's stats I think he may be a boarderline candidate all his career. Was he ever great in his career? His best MVP finish was a 4th. For the last 6 years of his career he made no All Star games, no MVP votes, no GG's. His numbers are pretty good, but are they great?

BuckeyeRedleg
07-23-2012, 11:58 AM
Biggio and Morris.

Maybe Piazza.

Writers will not let the rest have a chance to get in on the first ballot.

For Bonds and Sosa comps, McGwire and Palmeiro's first few years on the ballot are a decent indicator showing they have no chance for a while (although I think Bonds should be a no-brainer).

McGwire - 23.5%, 23.6%, 21.9%, 23.7%, 19.8%, 19.5%. His numbers are trending downward. He'll have to be a Veteran's Committee pick some day when he's an old man, if it ever happens. I would put Sosa in the same category.

Palmeiro - 11.0%, 12.6%. Pretty much has no chance to be voted in by the sportswriters.

I'm also wondering if Lofton on the ballot will take away a little of the momentum Raines has been building (24.3%, 22.6%, 30.4%, 37.5%, 48.7%).

Who I think should be in:

Too many now, but I think Bagwell, Biggio, Morris, Raines, Trammel, Whitaker (off the ballot), Walker, Bonds, Clemens, Piazza, Palmeiro, Schilling, Lee Smith, Dave Concepcion (off the ballot), Pete Rose (off the ballot), Steve Garvey (off the ballot), Tony Oliva (off the ballot), Gil Hodges (off the ballot), Roger Maris (off the ballot), Graig Nettles (off the ballot), Darrell Evans (off the ballot), and Bobby Grich (off the ballot) should all be in the HOF one day. Not that they will.

westofyou
07-23-2012, 11:58 AM
What's wrong with Napoleon Lajoie?

WildcatFan
07-23-2012, 11:59 AM
I would rather "look petty" to you than to have those 2 soil the HOF.

Bum

Baseball is a perfect game played by imperfect people. Segregation, cheating, gambling, throwing a World Series, juicing, drinking during games, greenies, spiking, the list goes on and on.

It's part of what makes the sport so fascinating, and ignoring some of the game's most accomplished players based on an arbitrary definition seems shortsighted to me.

This isn't a thread about the merits of the HOF, though, so apologies for getting sidetracked. Go ahead and add Biggio to my list; I had somehow forgotten about the 3,000 hits magic number.

Scrap Irony
07-23-2012, 11:59 AM
And what say you about Peter Edward?

Baseball has to re-instate him first.

After that happens (and it should), I'd have no problem with the same argument. Shoeless Joe too, for that matter.

I like the idea of a lack of induction ceremony or at least an amended one. Give them the plaque, but show the same lack of respect they showed to the game.

westofyou
07-23-2012, 12:01 PM
And what say you about Peter Edward?
Pete will get in.

When he's gone... and can't profit on it.

RedsBaron
07-23-2012, 12:17 PM
I've been pretty vociferous about this issue in the past and don't really want to start an argument but I can't rationalize the existence of the HOF if Bonds and Clemens arent elected into it. They were the two best players of the generation and it wasn't even close.

The same argument could be made for Pete Rose and Joe Jackson; different shortcomings but otherwise clear Hall of Famers.
Rose and Jackson are "in the HOF" in a way. If you tour the Hall their career accomplishments are certainly set forth. I had my photograph made standing in front of an exhibit on Rose earlier this month.
Yes, I understand the argument that gambling on the game is different than juicing up to accomplish what you could not otherwise do. I understand the argument that Bonds and Clemens have not been proven to have juiced beyond any potential doubt. However you still have two players in Rose and Jackson who are otherwise clear HOF worthy, who are not inducted into the HOF but whose careers are "recognized" in Cooperstown. The HOF could do the same thing with Bonds and Clemens: recognize their careers but deny them induction.
The real train wreck for the PEDS era is the volume of players who are strongly suspected of being PEDS users but without definitive proof: absent a confession definitive proof of PEDS use prior to testing is probably impossible.
There is also no provision for kicking out someone who has been inducted. Suppose the voters induct Piazza and then a couple of years later he confesses to PEDS use-he is still a member of the HOF.

Raisor
07-23-2012, 12:26 PM
What's wrong with Napoleon Lajoie?

He let his supply train get too long while invading Russia.

Always Red
07-23-2012, 12:31 PM
I understand the argument that Bonds and Clemens have not been proven to have juiced beyond any potential doubt.

Rightly or wrongly, Clemens beat a federal charge for lying about it.

That has to count for something, but I still expect the BBWAA to hold it against him.

It would be easier to count the few non-juicers than the juicers during that time.

There's gonna be a lot of angst and arguing over the next few years, since there is just no way to say who is sinless and who is not.

I have done a 180 on this over the last few years, and am now of the opinion that they should be allowed in, unless they have been banned from the game.

Rose WILL be reinstated, once both he and Bud pass on. That is Pete's penance, and probably a fair one. But then Joe Jackson should also be allowed in, and his plaque hang next to Rose's.

bucksfan2
07-23-2012, 12:34 PM
Rightly or wrongly, Clemens beat a federal charge for lying about it.

That has to count for something, but I still expect the BBWAA to hold it against him.

It would be easier to count the few non-juicers than the juicers during that time.

There's gonna be a lot of angst and arguing over the next few years, since there is just no way to say who is sinless and who is not.

I have done a 180 on this over the last few years, and am now of the opinion that they should be allowed in, unless they have been banned from the game.

Rose WILL be reinstated, once both he and Bud pass on. That is Pete's penance, and probably a fair one. But then Joe Jackson should also be allowed in, and his plaque hang next to Rose's.

They are allowed in. It may be semantics but they aren't banned from baseball its just up to the writers to vote them in.

Always Red
07-23-2012, 12:41 PM
They are allowed in. It may be semantics but they aren't banned from baseball its just up to the writers to vote them in.

I worded that poorly.

Yes, I know they haven't been banned.

A couple of years ago, I would not have voted them in, and now I would.

It will be (if I'm still kicking then) interesting to see if the Veterans Committee looks more kindly upon the Steroid Crew than do the BBWAA.

reds1869
07-23-2012, 12:52 PM
A HOF without Barry Bonds is not complete. PEDs or not he was the greatest player of his generation and in the conversation as one of the best hitters ever. He had a career OPS of 1.051; just let that sink in for a moment. Only three players rank higher and their names are Ruth, Williams and Gehrig.

hebroncougar
07-23-2012, 01:14 PM
You guys think Schilling will get in? I never ever considered him a Hall of Famer. A great Post Season Pitcher for sure, but a Hall of Famer? I don't think he was dominant long enough.

cumberlandreds
07-23-2012, 01:24 PM
You guys think Schilling will get in? I never ever considered him a Hall of Famer. A great Post Season Pitcher for sure, but a Hall of Famer? I don't think he was dominant long enough.

If Schilling gets in then Jack Morris should. IIRC, they were very similar pitchers with similar stats. Both were very good in the post season. IMO they both should be in. But I'm a softie when it comes to the HOF and who gets in. :)

RedsBaron
07-23-2012, 01:31 PM
A HOF without Barry Bonds is not complete.

A HOF without Pete Rose is not complete.

RedsBaron
07-23-2012, 01:44 PM
If Schilling gets in then Jack Morris should. IIRC, they were very similar pitchers with similar stats. Both were very good in the post season. IMO they both should be in. But I'm a softie when it comes to the HOF and who gets in. :)

Schilling and Morris do share certain similarities. Schilling was a six time All Star while Morris made five All Star teams. Neither won a Cy Young. Each won 20 games in a season three times. Both twice led his league in wins. Schilling twice led in strikeouts and innings pitched, while Morris lead in each category once.
However Schilling generally leads Morris in many other categories. While Morris won more games, 254 to 216, he also lost more, 186 to 146; winning 38 more while losing 40 more hardly helps Morris's case in comparison to Schilling.
Schilling has the better winning percentage, .597 to .577, the better career ERA, 3.46 to 3.90, the better ERA+, 127 to 105, the better WHIP, 1.137 to 1.296, and a much higher WAR score, 76.9 to 39.3.
Schilling was also better in the post season, going 11-2 to Morris's 7-4, with a 2.23 ERA to Morris's 3.80, and a post season WHIP of 0.968 to Morris's 1.245.

Ghosts of 1990
07-23-2012, 01:51 PM
Do you guys think Reggie Sanders juiced? He was awfully chiseled.

cumberlandreds
07-23-2012, 01:55 PM
Do you guys think Reggie Sanders juiced? He was awfully chiseled.

I think most player juiced in that era to one degree or another. That being said I don't think Sanders has a shot for being in the hall juicing or not.

OldXOhio
07-23-2012, 01:55 PM
Pete will get in.

When he's gone... and can't profit on it.

Unlike the Santo posthumous election that I thought was poorly handled, I could see that for Pete.

reds1869
07-23-2012, 02:02 PM
A HOF without Pete Rose is not complete.

No disagreement on my part.

Unassisted
07-23-2012, 02:03 PM
I predict that the writers won't ever vote in (admitted or suspected) 'roiders and the 'roiders will have to get in via the Veterans' committee.

I'm on the fence about whether I agree with that, but I believe it is how this will go down.

RedsBaron
07-23-2012, 02:29 PM
I predict that the writers won't ever vote in (admitted or suspected) 'roiders and the 'roiders will have to get in via the Veterans' committee.

I'm on the fence about whether I agree with that, but I believe it is how this will go down.

I do believe that Bonds and Clemens are joined at the hip when it comes to HOF voting. I do not believe one can go in without the other, if voters are to have any consistency.

RedlegJake
07-23-2012, 04:08 PM
Biggio, Schilling, Clemens, Piazza, Bonds also McGwire. Not Sosa. Sammy was never hall quality UNTIL he began juicing. Biggio definitely. Schilling was a great competitor and if Drysdale makes it so does Schilling- that's who Curt reminds me of. Bonds was a Hall of Famer before he juiced, imo. That's why I say yes to him. Ditto Clemens. Piazza was maybe the greatest hitting catcher ever. McGwire - was he juicing before he even arrived? That is a question but I think it can never really be answered and I think he belongs. Schilling's numbers are better than Morris' if you look at them across the line - almost everything. And Curt is about where I'd cut off the minimum standard. Blackjack just misses in my opinion, but I wouldn't squawk if he made it either. Finally one last time - Concepcion should be in the Hall. Pete should and so should Shoeless Joe but maybe with a different plaque and no ceremony.

_Sir_Charles_
07-23-2012, 07:08 PM
He let his supply train get too long while invading Russia.

LOL. Ah, that made my day. :thumbup:

oneupper
07-23-2012, 07:28 PM
I predict that the writers won't ever vote in (admitted or suspected) 'roiders and the 'roiders will have to get in via the Veterans' committee.


I think they won't get in on the first try. But time will make people forget how much these guys messed up the game, campaigns will be started to get them inducted and they'll get in, way before the Veteran's committee takes over. Third try, tops for Clemens and Bonds, IMO.

The villains will be portrayed as victims and people will "come around" as one poster here stated that he has also changed views.

I don't agree with that (I'd keep them out), but that wasn't the question posted in the thread.

RedsBaron
07-23-2012, 07:45 PM
I think they won't get in on the first try. But time will make people forget how much these guys messed up the game, campaigns will be started to get them inducted and they'll get in, way before the Veteran's committee takes over. Third try, tops for Clemens and Bonds, IMO.

The villains will be portrayed as victims and people will "come around" as one poster here stated that he has also changed views.

I don't agree with that (I'd keep them out), but that wasn't the question posted in the thread.

I agree. If there were only a few players who are suspected of juicing I believe the media would never induct them but I think there are just too many to keep them all out. Once one juicer is inducted I expect that precedent will let others in.

edabbs44
07-23-2012, 07:53 PM
A HOF without Barry Bonds is not complete. PEDs or not he was the greatest player of his generation and in the conversation as one of the best hitters ever. He had a career OPS of 1.051; just let that sink in for a moment. Only three players rank higher and their names are Ruth, Williams and Gehrig.

That's like saying "A Dean's List without Bill Smith is not complete. Regardless if he had all the answers to all the tests or not, he was one of the smartest kids in school."

Dan
07-23-2012, 07:55 PM
I've been pretty vociferous about this issue in the past and don't really want to start an argument but I can't rationalize the existence of the HOF if Bonds and Clemens arent elected into it. They were the two best players of the generation and it wasn't even close.

I agree. Just not on the first ballot.

The only first timers I can see going in are:

Biggio
Piazza

The holdovers I'd like to see elected:

Bagwell
Morris

steig
07-23-2012, 08:02 PM
I think Piazza and Bonds get into the HOF. Bonds was a HOF player before he ever took PEDs. I don't think Biggio gets in on the first ballot, especially if Larkin did not. I don't think Schilling was a HOF level pitcher. He a great couple of years with the Sox but even he claims he is not a HOF player.

Clemens and all the other steroid guys won't get inducted. I'm not saying they all should not but I don't think the writers vote for them. Clemens had great career stats but his career was washed up until he started taking steroids after his departure from the Sox. Steroids made CLemens a HOFer in my opinion.

_Sir_Charles_
07-23-2012, 08:03 PM
I think both Biggio and Piazza get in...but not on the first ballot. I don't see any first timers getting in on the first ballot this time. Simply put, no slam dunks there.

westofyou
07-23-2012, 09:26 PM
Btw the term junkie is misused here, no one did this because their body told the to (ie junkie) they did it to make insane amounts of cash consistently

Like Hal Morris

Joseph
07-23-2012, 09:37 PM
I think Biggio is in the conversation.

Piazza I have doubts about.

Bonds and Clemens 'feel' like HoFers, but I don't know that it'll happen.

TeamBoone
07-23-2012, 09:51 PM
I've been pretty vociferous about this issue in the past and don't really want to start an argument but I can't rationalize the existence of the HOF if Bonds and Clemens arent elected into it. They were the two best players of the generation and it wasn't even close.

Then why not the same for Pete?

westofyou
07-23-2012, 10:21 PM
Then why not the same for Pete?

Because he broke the biggest rule ever established?

757690
07-23-2012, 10:34 PM
Because he broke the biggest rule ever established?

I would think cheating at the game itself would be breaking a bigger rule. I know it's not considered that way, but it should.

westofyou
07-23-2012, 10:42 PM
I would think cheating at the game itself would be breaking a bigger rule. I know it's not considered that way, but it should.

Pete ate greenies like a mutha too

take the guys who bet on baseball and put them on one side of the room, take the guys who ate bull testosterone (Hoss Radburn) greenies, steroids, HGH put them on the other side of the room.

Who is the outlier?

jojo
07-23-2012, 10:44 PM
I would think cheating at the game itself would be breaking a bigger rule. I know it's not considered that way, but it should.

Cheating to win is part of the fabric of the game. Cheating to lose is a worse crime than murder. That's just baseball.

757690
07-23-2012, 10:54 PM
Cheating to win is part of the fabric of the game. Cheating to lose is a worse crime than murder. That's just baseball.

Rose never cheated to lose. In fact, Rose never cheated. He broke an important rule, but never cheated on the game.

Cobb and Traynor on the other hand...

757690
07-23-2012, 10:59 PM
Pete ate greenies like a mutha too

take the guys who bet on baseball and put them on one side of the room, take the guys who ate bull testosterone (Hoss Radburn) greenies, steroids, HGH put them on the other side of the room.

Who is the outlier?

We've been through this before, steroids are different from all other PED's because they changed the way the game as played. It's like the difference between writing past the time the teacher says "time's up," and stealing the test ahead of time and writing all the answers on a cheat sheet.

westofyou
07-23-2012, 11:15 PM
We've been through this before, steroids are different from all other PED's because they changed the way the game as played. It's like the difference between writing past the time the teacher says "time's up," and stealing the test ahead of time and writing all the answers on a cheat sheet.

That's your opinion, which is fine.

Mine is not the same.

Especially considering Rule 21

dman
07-24-2012, 12:43 AM
Piazza, Biggio, and Schilling yes... Sosa, no... Bonds might make it because I don't think there's enough sports writers out there with the stones enough to face the flak from some for telling him no entry.

George Anderson
07-24-2012, 12:44 AM
Cobb and Traynor on the other hand...

Was anything ever proven about Cobb and Traynor beyond rumors?

George Anderson
07-24-2012, 12:46 AM
Biggio has 3,000 hits so he is a lock.

Piazza is close to a lock, he will likely get in this year if not then next year.

Superdude
07-24-2012, 01:10 AM
Count me as wanting them in. Excluding steroid users just leaves open that rabbit trail of trying to figure out who did what in a locker room 15 years ago. Everyone knows what happened, so it's not like the Bonds' and Sosa's are completely absolved of all guilt once they have a plaque.

George Anderson
07-24-2012, 01:13 AM
You guys think Schilling will get in? I never ever considered him a Hall of Famer. A great Post Season Pitcher for sure, but a Hall of Famer? I don't think he was dominant long enough.

No, I compare him to Don Drysdale and if you read what Bill James has to say about Drysdale you would agree he should not have been inducted.

http://www.leftfield.org/~rawdon/books/baseball/hall.of.fame.html

George Anderson
07-24-2012, 01:17 AM
Pete will get in.

.

Do you really think so?

Even if he is made eligible whether alive or not, I don't see the writers putting him in.

It also seems IMO the vast majority of the current members do not want him in which carries alot of weight.

mbgrayson
07-24-2012, 01:43 AM
Pete ate greenies like a mutha too

This statement is nonsense. Pure, unadulterated nonsense.

First of all, if you are willing to buy into the rumor mill as sufficient evidence of using 'greenies', then literally every player of that generation was guilty. That includes Aaron, Mays, Stargell, Seaver, Bench, Morgan, Santo, et al. Rumor has it that Greenies were supposedly set out in a bowl in the clubhouse in plain view for anyone to use. It was looked at like coffee: an available way for players to overcome long travel days and all night escapades with booze or women or both.

From ESPN: (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=kreidler_mark&id=2225013)

The current commissioner, Selig, has said he first heard about greenies in the old Milwaukee Braves clubhouses of the late 1950s.
The stimulants have been steadily mentioned ever since, too -- but almost never by anyone in the midst of his career. A retired Tony Gwynn spoke openly of baseball's amphetamine problem in 2003, estimating for The New York Times that 50 percent of position players were using them routinely, many of them before almost every game.

From SI: (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/baseball/mlb/01/11/amphetamines.outlawed/index.html)

The late Ken Caminiti told SI in 2002 that only one or two players per team competed without greenies--

Rose did admit in 2007 on Letterman that he used greenies, which he referred to as diet pills, to lose weight in spring training. I suspect that he, like most players of his era, also used them during the season.

There is also a certain amount of ambiguity over exactly what substance or substances were considered to be 'greenies'. Greenies is a generic phrase for amphetamines. It could include prescription strength amphetmine, or over the counter diet pills, which at the time routinely contained various forms of amphetamine. The pill called 'Obetrol' was a stimulant based diet pill popular in the 1950s and 1960s, and is almost idtical to adderall, which is used now for ADD.

From eNotes Amphetamine reference: (http://www.enotes.com/amphetamines-reference/amphetamines-176946)

The massive increase in drug use in the 1960s prompted countries throughout the world to pass new anti-drug laws and regulations. In the United States, Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) of 1970, which cut down considerably on the production, importation, and prescription of amphetamines. Many forms of amphetamine, particularly diet pills, were removed from the over-the-counter market.

Finally, these pills were not against the rules of baseball at the time. I understand that MLB did not prohibit the use of 'greenies' until 2006. There is not ONE SINGLE PLAYER of Rose's era ever punished for using 'Greenies'. There was not even MLB drug testing at that time.

Even under current MLB drug rules, over 100 players are granted 'theraputic use exceptions' and are allowed to take prescription stimulants for ADD.

To throw this 'greenies' statement out there as any kind of valid reason for Rose not to be in the HOF is total nonsense.

Brutus
07-24-2012, 01:56 AM
Personally, I think there's a difference between character issues and still getting in the Hall and using performance-enhancing drugs to boost one's performance.

I don't have a problem letting rigid characters into the Hall. But if a player needed PEDs to elevate his game, one should question whether he is deserving of such a prestigious honor, even if that weren't his motivation for doing it.

So I don't mind putting guys like Ty Cobb in for being a world-class jerk, but I mind putting guys like Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa in the Hall.

Barry Bonds is an interesting case. While he might have been the biggest juicer of them all, he was one of the absolute best players in the league while in Pittsburgh even before he started roiding up, so I'd not make an argument he wasn't deserving with or without PEDS. But that he was such an obvious benefactor makes it a cloudy argument regardless.

Nathan
07-24-2012, 02:07 AM
Honestly, I have no problem with letting the "juicers" in the hall of fame. If you do that, wouldn't you effectively ban anyone who threw a spitball? Wasn't that considered cheating? Or how about George Brett and his overly pine tarred bat? Didn't some umpire decide he was a cheat?

Even if they decided it is just a punishment because they are bad dudes? Well.. Where to start on that one? I can guarantee there are more than enough bad dudes in the Hall of Fame. So, quite frankly, it's already tarnished beyond repair, according to their strict standards of the Hall of Fame, and who should and shouldn't be in, so, what difference does it make if there's a handful of players who used steroids (which was according to some accounts pretty much readily available during their tenure) are in? You can't blame the era and environment for what is perceived in hindsight as immoral. Never mind that not all players being punished by this has been proven guilty.

That being said, I don't condone cheating. /soapbox

AtomicDumpling
07-24-2012, 02:47 AM
I believe the Hall of Fame is there for the fans of baseball, not for the players. It is not a temple where former players are deified and worshiped. It is a museum where fans can go to relive the glory days and learn about the history of baseball. By leaving out some of the best and most famous players the Hall of Fame is merely cheating the people who love baseball -- now and in future generations.

camisadelgolf
07-24-2012, 04:40 AM
It shouldn't be the writers' decision on guessing who took steroids and who didn't. Someone else should decide whether they're eligible for the Hall of Fame. Perhaps leave it up to the members of the Hall of Fame on how they want to handle it.

gilpdawg
07-24-2012, 05:51 AM
It shouldn't be the writers' decision on guessing who took steroids and who didn't. Someone else should decide whether they're eligible for the Hall of Fame. Perhaps leave it up to the members of the Hall of Fame on how they want to handle it.

Many writers think Bagwell juiced, even though there's zero evidence, and I think that's why he wasn't put in already. Stupid. The writers need to get over themselves.

Nathan
07-24-2012, 06:16 AM
It shouldn't be the writers' decision on guessing who took steroids and who didn't. Someone else should decide whether they're eligible for the Hall of Fame. Perhaps leave it up to the members of the Hall of Fame on how they want to handle it.

Don't you know? Every player that made their MLB Debut between 1985 and 2000 and hit 350 home runs in their career must've been juiced. Duh! Oh, and Roger Clemens was on the juice.

Seriously.. I think that's what the Mitchell Report was supposed to do. I'm surprised that someone didn't sue him for libel. Those are some pretty strong accusations.

edabbs44
07-24-2012, 07:03 AM
Comparing greenies to steroids is nonsense. Over the past 20 years we have seen things in all sports that we have never seen before. It isn't a coincidence.

westofyou
07-24-2012, 09:13 AM
This statement is nonsense. Pure, unadulterated nonsense.

First of all, if you are willing to buy into the rumor mill as sufficient evidence of using 'greenies', then literally every player of that generation was guilty. That includes Aaron, Mays, Stargell, Seaver, Bench, Morgan, Santo, et al. Rumor has it that Greenies were supposedly set out in a bowl in the clubhouse in plain view for anyone to use. It was looked at like coffee: an available way for players to overcome long travel days and all night escapades with booze or women or both.

From ESPN: (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=kreidler_mark&id=2225013)


From SI: (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/baseball/mlb/01/11/amphetamines.outlawed/index.html)


Rose did admit in 2007 on Letterman that he used greenies, which he referred to as diet pills, to lose weight in spring training. I suspect that he, like most players of his era, also used them during the season.

There is also a certain amount of ambiguity over exactly what substance or substances were considered to be 'greenies'. Greenies is a generic phrase for amphetamines. It could include prescription strength amphetmine, or over the counter diet pills, which at the time routinely contained various forms of amphetamine. The pill called 'Obetrol' was a stimulant based diet pill popular in the 1950s and 1960s, and is almost idtical to adderall, which is used now for ADD.

From eNotes Amphetamine reference: (http://www.enotes.com/amphetamines-reference/amphetamines-176946)


Finally, these pills were not against the rules of baseball at the time. I understand that MLB did not prohibit the use of 'greenies' until 2006. There is not ONE SINGLE PLAYER of Rose's era ever punished for using 'Greenies'. There was not even MLB drug testing at that time.

Even under current MLB drug rules, over 100 players are granted 'theraputic use exceptions' and are allowed to take prescription stimulants for ADD.

To throw this 'greenies' statement out there as any kind of valid reason for Rose not to be in the HOF is total nonsense.

I didn't say Pete shouldn't get in because if greenies, I said he USED them, IIRC Pete mentioned Greenies in a playboy interview during his career.

No Pete shouldn't get in because he's a lying cheat who bet on the game, I could give a rats arse about greenies

mbgrayson
07-24-2012, 10:26 AM
I didn't say Pete shouldn't get in because if greenies, I said he USED them, IIRC Pete mentioned Greenies in a playboy interview during his career.

No Pete shouldn't get in because he's a lying cheat who bet on the game, I could give a rats arse about greenies

What is interesting to me is that you attach a page from the book "Hustle, the Myth, Life, and Lies of Pete Rose' by M (http://www.amazon.com/Hustle-Myth-Life-Lies-Pete/dp/B003H4RCQG/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_1)ichael Sokolove. (http://www.amazon.com/Hustle-Myth-Life-Lies-Pete/dp/B003H4RCQG/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_1) That book is by far the harshest view of Rose ever written. It attacks every aspect of Rose, and really gives short shrift to anything positive.

Yet, at the end of the book, even Sokolove advocates that Rose should be in the HOF. This writer, who spent an entire book recounting every negative Rose story he could get his hands on, says:


As sports fans, we should grow up. We should expect great athletes to be just as flawed as the rest of society. To be realistic, we should probably expect them to be more flawed.

We should honor and admire great athletes for what they do, not what they are. We really don't know what they are, do we?

Rose earned his banishment from major league baseball by flagrantly violating its rules against gambling.

And he earned his place in baseball's Hall of Fame.

What Pete Rose leaves to the game he loved, his legacy, is not romance but a disquieting reality: A man can belong both in the Hall of Fame and in federal prison.

westofyou
07-24-2012, 10:37 AM
Good for him, everyone has an opinion on the subject that's evident. He can decide that for himself, as for that passage from his book in my post attaching it shouldn't be construed as anything more than evidence in the greenies talk from prior posts. Because he feels PR should get in even after he slammed him in his book that's fine, it has no (and shouldn't) bearing on my decision

If I attached a quote from Ball Four instead would that mean I should go shoot some beaver tonight?

RedsManRick
07-24-2012, 11:10 AM
I've been pretty vociferous about this issue in the past and don't really want to start an argument but I can't rationalize the existence of the HOF if Bonds and Clemens arent elected into it. They were the two best players of the generation and it wasn't even close.

Agreed. I see no value in keeping out the players who performed the best on the field. As Nate Silver often suggests, don't attempt to rewrite history. Just put it in the proper context.

If you put up the numbers, you go in the hall. If you have a problem with cheaters going in to the hall, stop the cheating. And do a whole section of the hall around the steroids era, the effect in had on the game, on perception of stars, etc.

RedsBaron
07-24-2012, 01:01 PM
No Pete shouldn't get in because he's a lying cheat who bet on the game

Any player who used PEDS was a lying cheat as well. They cheated in a different way, but they cheated.

BuckeyeRedleg
07-24-2012, 01:12 PM
Did they ever determine whether Pete ever bet on his team to lose?

westofyou
07-24-2012, 01:23 PM
Did they ever determine whether Pete ever bet on his team to lose?

Don't think so, I suppose what they know was enough, Pete certainly has made a cottage industry out of the event

RedsBaron
07-24-2012, 01:25 PM
Did they ever determine whether Pete ever bet on his team to lose?

I don't think so. I believe that John Dowd said in an interview that Rose "probably" did so, but I am unaware of any evidence to that effect.

cumberlandreds
07-24-2012, 01:35 PM
Don't think so, I suppose what they know was enough, Pete certainly has made a cottage industry out of the event

I'm surprised Pete hasn't signed a baseball that says " I am sorry I bet on baseball,but I never bet on the Reds to lose."

RedsBaron
07-24-2012, 01:40 PM
I'm surprised Pete hasn't signed a baseball that says " I am sorry I bet on baseball,but I never bet on the Reds to lose."

He probably has. I understand that Pete, for a price, will sign whatever you want.

Hoosier Red
07-24-2012, 01:42 PM
I agree. If there were only a few players who are suspected of juicing I believe the media would never induct them but I think there are just too many to keep them all out. Once one juicer is inducted I expect that precedent will let others in.

I always thought that guys like A-Rod, Clemens and Bonds would benefit from someone like Andy Pettite being elected. I don't think it would have been held against him like it will be for them, and then once he was in, it would knock down some resistance about steroid users in general.

savafan
07-24-2012, 01:50 PM
I can't believe we're still looking at gambling, and the misdeeds of one man, versus steroids, and an entire era of cheating that rewrote the record books, through the eyes of those living in the early 20th century.

westofyou
07-24-2012, 01:52 PM
I can't believe we're still looking at gambling, and the misdeeds of one man, versus steroids, and an entire era of cheating that rewrote the record books, through the eyes of those living in the early 20th century.

And I can't believe people still want to carry Pete around on their shoulders and celebrate his actions

Life's funny eh?

savafan
07-24-2012, 01:56 PM
And I can't believe people still want to carry Pete around on their shoulders and celebrate his actions

Life's funny eh?

4,256 hits, more than anyone in the game.

3,562 games played, more than anyone in the game. His team won 1,972 of those games, better than anyone who's ever played the game.

23 consecutive seasons with 100 or more hits.

Played 500 games at 5 different positions, something no other player has ever done.

2,165 runs scored, best in the history of the National League.

746 career doubles, a National League record.

But hey, what's to celebrate? ;)

westofyou
07-24-2012, 02:00 PM
4,256 hits, more than anyone in the game.

3,562 games played, more than anyone in the game. His team won 1,972 of those games, better than anyone who's ever played the game.

23 consecutive seasons with 100 or more hits.

Played 500 games at 5 different positions, something no other player has ever done.

2,165 runs scored, best in the history of the National League.

746 career doubles, a National League record.

But hey, what's to celebrate? ;)

Fourteen players have been tossed from the game for life for violating Rule 21, and no commissioner has found reason to reinstate any of them.

But hey Pete stayed around forever and was healthy, got a bunch of hits AND he went to WHHS!!

Therefore forget about Rule 21

savafan
07-24-2012, 02:06 PM
Therefore forget about Rule 21


Not at all, I just feel that those who used steroids cheated the game far more, and their effect will be longer lasting, than what Pete did.

Chip R
07-24-2012, 02:13 PM
Did they ever determine whether Pete ever bet on his team to lose?

Not for a certainty but if you are betting on them to win one game and then you don't bet on them on another game...

RedlegJake
07-24-2012, 02:14 PM
Not for a certainty but if you are betting on them to win one game and then you don't bet on them on another game...

Yeah - its kinda obvious just by the games you pick to bet on

Brutus
07-24-2012, 02:42 PM
Fourteen players have been tossed from the game for life for violating Rule 21, and no commissioner has found reason to reinstate any of them.

But hey Pete stayed around forever and was healthy, got a bunch of hits AND he went to WHHS!!

Therefore forget about Rule 21

Some people clearly just don't see Pete's actions being as severe as you do. I think you can appreciate that, yes?

westofyou
07-24-2012, 02:53 PM
Some people clearly just don't see Pete's actions being as severe as you do. I think you can appreciate that, yes?

For sure, and IF he gets in to the museum in NY I won't get my panties in a bunch.

IF he got reinstated to MLB I'd get an atomic wedgie though.

I will note that Pete gets little sympathy outside of the seven hills area, so hearing the din of let Pete in on a Reds board is hardly a surprise

Brutus
07-24-2012, 02:59 PM
For sure, and IF he gets in to the museum in NY I won't get my panties in a bunch.

IF he got reinstated to MLB I'd get an atomic wedgie though.

I will note that Pete gets little sympathy outside of the seven hills area, so hearing the din of let Pete in on a Reds board is hardly a surprise

Truthfully, I agree with you that he shouldn't be reinstated. But I think he belongs in the Hall of Fame for the reasons that have been mentioned by others... that it's a testament to his playing ability.

edabbs44
07-24-2012, 03:58 PM
Agreed. I see no value in keeping out the players who performed the best on the field. As Nate Silver often suggests, don't attempt to rewrite history. Just put it in the proper context.

If you put up the numbers, you go in the hall. If you have a problem with cheaters going in to the hall, stop the cheating. And do a whole section of the hall around the steroids era, the effect in had on the game, on perception of stars, etc.

What are your thoughts about deterring cheating and drug usage, for multiple reasons?

steig
07-24-2012, 04:52 PM
In my opinion there is a huge difference between Pete betting on baseball and steroid/PED users. What Pete did was far worse than using PEDs. Pete corrupted the game and the integrity of the game. If he didn't bet on the game was he trying to win the game, or was he thinking about winning tomorrow?

PED users cheated the rules but to a different degree. If you were to put up a section in the HOF for the steroid users and the effect that it had on the game that is fine. But what are you going to say about the effect on the game? That is put fans in the seats after the strike in '94, that fans flocked to stadiums to see mammoth home runs hit and to see more pitchers hurling 97 MPH fastball for power on power challenges. How it made average players good, good players great, and great players became just awesome on steroids. What are you going to say bad about steroids, other than that it is taboo in our culture. Is it wrong from a competitive standpoint, possibly. Not everyone should be forced to use steroids to stay competitive.

If steroids made you a HOF candidate, then you should not get in. That is why I think Bonds belongs in the HOF, he was the greatest player I have ever seen play. Even before he started taking PEDS. And after he started taking PEDS I'm still amazed at how he worked his ABs and put together some incredible seasons just based on his average and number of strike outs.

AtomicDumpling
07-24-2012, 05:18 PM
Not at all, I just feel that those who used steroids cheated the game far more, and their effect will be longer lasting, than what Pete did.

Absolutely. The steroids cheaters gained a tremendous unfair advantage over the honest players, they benefited both financially and on the field -- and they got away with it pretty much scot-free. Pete Rose was punished severely for a much lesser offense from which he did not gain an unfair advantage or any benefit at all from his nefarious deeds. I think his excessively harsh treatment was largely due to the innate disdain self-styled "intellectuals" and sophisticates like A. Bartlett Giamati and his Ivy League upper-crust cronies harboured for the uncouth, brash, vulgar, uber-competitive, blue-collar winner Pete Rose who so routinely whipped their beloved Red Sox and Yankees. They rejoiced in their opportunity to give Pete his long overdue comeuppance.

Perhaps if Pete's antics had filled the stadiums with new fans after a World Series sacrificed to their greedy, self-immolating warfare over money had driven the old fans away in droves they may have turned a blind eye to his infraction like they soon did when Bonds, McGwire and Sosa Incredible Hulked their way into unprecedented home run and attendance records and lined the billionaire owners' pockets with newfound wealth.

EDIT (added new paragraph):

What Pete Rose did was wrong in a big way. He knew it was wrong and he did it anyway. He deserved a severe punishment. He certainly should never have been allowed to influence a game again -- no playing, no coaching, no managing, no general managing. He should have been given a total ban for a period of time. But a lifetime ban with absolutely no affiliation with the league or any team until the day he dies is nuclear overkill. No honors, no statues, no plaques, no ceremonial first pitches forever? Just pretend he never existed? It is just shamefully spiteful, vindictive and petty. His crime was bad, but its not like he threw the World Series. If there was any impact on the outcome of real games it was minimal, certainly not to the extent that superhuman size and strength did for Bonds, McGwire and the other steroids abusers. Pete used very poor judgement and allowed his gambling problem to destroy his career, but he did not intentionally plot to subvert the very fabric of the game and steal success for himself and his team at the expense of others. Let's face it, Pete Rose is not very bright. He screwed up big time, but he is not the Devil.

RedsBaron
07-24-2012, 05:27 PM
In my opinion there is a huge difference between Pete betting on baseball and steroid/PED users. What Pete did was far worse than using PEDs. Pete corrupted the game and the integrity of the game. If he didn't bet on the game was he trying to win the game, or was he thinking about winning tomorrow?

PED users cheated the rules but to a different degree. If you were to put up a section in the HOF for the steroid users and the effect that it had on the game that is fine. But what are you going to say about the effect on the game? That is put fans in the seats after the strike in '94, that fans flocked to stadiums to see mammoth home runs hit and to see more pitchers hurling 97 MPH fastball for power on power challenges. How it made average players good, good players great, and great players became just awesome on steroids. What are you going to say bad about steroids, other than that it is taboo in our culture. Is it wrong from a competitive standpoint, possibly. Not everyone should be forced to use steroids to stay competitive.

If steroids made you a HOF candidate, then you should not get in. That is why I think Bonds belongs in the HOF, he was the greatest player I have ever seen play. Even before he started taking PEDS. And after he started taking PEDS I'm still amazed at how he worked his ABs and put together some incredible seasons just based on his average and number of strike outs.

Arguably PEDs users cheated the game to a worse degree than anything Rose has been proven to have done. Was it wrong from a competitive standpoint? Absolutely. A few weeks ago SI had an interesting article about a number of players who chose not to juice and never made the majors, as compared to one player who did juice and had a brief career in "the show." The use of PEDs gave those players an unfair advantage over players who chose not to cheat. PEDs made marginal or worse major league players into stars, while those players who remained "clean" also remained on the outside looking in at the majors.
Look, Pete Rose's sins are well documented. I do not believe Rose needs reinstated to the game. However I do not excuse those other players who cheated in a different way.

dfs
07-24-2012, 05:45 PM
Clearly in...

Curt Schilling
Sammy Sosa

Would be in but tarred by roids. I do not think the writers will put them in.
Mike Piazza
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens

I think they fall short...
Reggie Sanders
Tony Batista
Sandy Alomar
Steve Finley
David Wells
Shawn Green
Roberto Hernandez
Jose Mesa

That leaves Kenny Lofton. I don't think Lofton gets in. I think he belongs in the hall of very good which is a fine place to be. Since he doesn't have overwhelming numbers, he didn't spend his whole career in one city, he's a run scored while the hof tends to adore guys who drive runs in...I don't see Lofton getting in. It wouldn't bother me if he did, I just don't see it happening.

I think he's in the same boat as Scott Rolen. Awfully close, but not quite in.

AtomicDumpling
07-24-2012, 06:00 PM
:)

I've got no problem with them letting all the junkies in as long as they let Pete Rose in. Here is the list of newbies. Who gets in?

Craig Biggio
Curt Schilling
Sammy Sosa
Mike Piazza
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Reggie Sanders
Tony Batista
Sandy Alomar
Steve Finley
David Wells
Kenny Lofton
Shawn Green
Roberto Hernandez
Jose Mesa

http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/hof_2013.shtml


Piazza, Bonds and Clemens will all get in the HOF soon -- and they should. I imagine the writers will make them wait at least a couple years instead of getting in on the 1st ballot as they otherwise would. That is the writers' only real way to chastise them for their illicit size and strength.

I think Biggio will get in too, but I don't think he should. His lifetime totals are good and will likely suffice, but to me he was just not ever an elite player. He is one of those guys that played at a semi-star level for a long time. To me that is not nearly as impressive as being one of the absolute best players in the league for a shorter time. One major reason he may get in next year is because many writers will want to vote for someone even though they will not vote for the steroid crew on their first ballot, so Biggio is their best fallback option next year so he will get votes he might not have gotten if there was a better non-PED option available.

Sammy Sosa may get in way down the road, but to me he is undeserving and is merely a product of steroids.

Kenny Lofton is a big old no way for me. He wasn't much more than an average player for most of his career.

Schilling is a tough call. I think he will get in because he played well in some big-time situations in the postseason, but his career numbers don't cut the cake in my opinion.

Pete Rose will get in the HOF soon after his death.

Dave Concepcion is a borderline case but will get enshrined by the Veterans Committee some day down the road. Dave Parker might too.

RedlegJake
07-24-2012, 07:35 PM
Piazza, Bonds and Clemens will all get in the HOF soon -- and they should.... I agree 100% Each have some 'roid taint but each was Hall worthy before that


I think Biggio will get in too, but I don't think he should. His lifetime totals are good and will likely suffice, but to me he was just not ever an elite player. He is one of those guys that played at a semi-star level for a long time.... I agree with you but Eddie Murray made it in with the same kind of career - steady long year after year semi-star that eventually piled up the counting numbers but he was never a big star or the best at his position


Sammy Sosa may get in way down the road, but to me he is undeserving and is merely a product of steroids. Completely agree- before steroids he was just a skinny free swinging outfielder that never did much that was notable. I also agree about about Lofton - a good player who was in the level just below Hall of Fame Standards. Good but not great.




Schilling is a tough call. I think he will get in because he played well in some big-time situations in the postseason, but his career numbers don't cut the cake in my opinion. I tend to agree although I think his numbers compare favorably with Don Drysdale and so does his bulldog determination and attitude. I think he belongs but he and Drysdale are the Mendoza line for Hall of Fame Pitchers. If you weren't better than these two you don't belong.

I agree about Rose getting in after his death and possibly Shoeless Joe, too, when they do it - both without a ceremony, done with a simple announcement, perhaps just after a regular induction ceremony so it doesn't take any attention from the regular inductees.

Concepcion will make it through the Veterans Committee. That's also how Blackjack Morris will get in too.

George Anderson
07-24-2012, 07:47 PM
Truthfully, I agree with you that he shouldn't be reinstated. But I think he belongs in the Hall of Fame for the reasons that have been mentioned by others... that it's a testament to his playing ability.

I am curious just why you care if Rose makes the HOF or not because he has stated numerous times that the HOF is not that big of a deal to him? The horse he wants to ride on (pun intended) is to get back in to baseball so he can coach or manage again. So if Pete really doesn't care, why do you? I did very much at one time care about seeing him inducted but I really don't care anymore simply because he doesn't.

Follow the money with Pete, he wants back in the game to get a steady paycheck as a coach or manager ( should a team actually hire him) . I am sure getting into the HOF he believes would be nice, but financially it would benefit little to him so thus it really is no big deal to him.

It just cracks me up to see people get so worked up about Pete and the HOF when Pete really could care less.

Brutus
07-24-2012, 07:51 PM
I am curious just why you care if Rose makes the HOF or not because he has stated numerous times that the HOF is not that big of a deal to him? The horse he wants to ride on (pun intended) is to get back in to baseball so he can coach or manage again. So if Pete really doesn't care, why do you? I did very much at one time care about seeing him inducted but I really don't care anymore simply because he doesn't.

Follow the money with Pete, he wants back in the game to get a steady paycheck as a coach or manager ( should a team actually hire him) . I am sure getting into the HOF he believes would be nice, but financially it would benefit little to him so thus it really is no big deal to him.

It just cracks me up to see people get so worked up about Pete and the HOF when Pete really could care less.


The Hall of Fame will continue on after Pete's life. Whether he cares or not, the Hall is a shrine to the game's best players, managers and umpires, and a living will to dedicate to the accomplishments of those people. I don't care whether Pete cares or not. I think, as a baseball fan, it's important to recognize those accomplishments and memorialize them. This isn't about Pete or what Pete wants. This is about Pete's contributions to Major League Baseball.

RedsBaron
07-24-2012, 08:01 PM
I am curious just why you care if Rose makes the HOF or not because he has stated numerous times that the HOF is not that big of a deal to him? The horse he wants to ride on (pun intended) is to get back in to baseball so he can coach or manage again. So if Pete really doesn't care, why do you? I did very much at one time care about seeing him inducted but I really don't care anymore simply because he doesn't.

Follow the money with Pete, he wants back in the game to get a steady paycheck as a coach or manager ( should a team actually hire him) . I am sure getting into the HOF he believes would be nice, but financially it would benefit little to him so thus it really is no big deal to him.

It just cracks me up to see people get so worked up about Pete and the HOF when Pete really could care less.

That is a curious divide. I don't hear much noise from fans, even in Cincinnati, about wanting Pete Rose to be reinstated so that he can be a manager or coach or otherwise be employed in MLB, but that seems to be Rose's primary concern. Fans do care about Rose being inducted into the HOF but that honor seems to not mean nearly as much to Rose.

Raisor
07-24-2012, 09:00 PM
Pete Rose accepted a permanent ban from baseball.

The Hall of Fame does not accept players who have been permanently banned.

It's pretty simple.

steig
07-24-2012, 09:08 PM
Arguably PEDs users cheated the game to a worse degree than anything Rose has been proven to have done. Was it wrong from a competitive standpoint? Absolutely. A few weeks ago SI had an interesting article about a number of players who chose not to juice and never made the majors, as compared to one player who did juice and had a brief career in "the show." The use of PEDs gave those players an unfair advantage over players who chose not to cheat. PEDs made marginal or worse major league players into stars, while those players who remained "clean" also remained on the outside looking in at the majors.
Look, Pete Rose's sins are well documented. I do not believe Rose needs reinstated to the game. However I do not excuse those other players who cheated in a different way.

How are performance enhancing drugs worse than reflex drugs/stimulants that players took for decades. What bad really came from the steroids era players? So marginal players did not make it to the show because they didn't want to use steroids. If I was a marginal player and could have gotten to the show because of roids then I would have dropped my pants and stuck that needle in my butt before you could blink. What Pete did was to take away the nature of competition. If a man is addicted to gambling and is willing to bet on his team that what realistically makes you think he wouldn't bet against his team. Let's not forget that there are strong ties between Pete and steroids. He may not have taken them but he brought steroid using trainers and distributors to the clubhouse while he was a manager.

The real questions is in 20 years how are people going to think about the steroids players? It has been over 20 years for Pete and people still are strongly against him and how he disgraced the game. Even joe jackson is remembered more for the 1919 world series than being a great player.

AtomicDumpling
07-24-2012, 09:14 PM
I am curious just why you care if Rose makes the HOF or not because he has stated numerous times that the HOF is not that big of a deal to him? The horse he wants to ride on (pun intended) is to get back in to baseball so he can coach or manage again. So if Pete really doesn't care, why do you? I did very much at one time care about seeing him inducted but I really don't care anymore simply because he doesn't.

Follow the money with Pete, he wants back in the game to get a steady paycheck as a coach or manager ( should a team actually hire him) . I am sure getting into the HOF he believes would be nice, but financially it would benefit little to him so thus it really is no big deal to him.

It just cracks me up to see people get so worked up about Pete and the HOF when Pete really could care less.

You are right, he wants to get back in baseball more than he wants to get into the Hall of Fame. If Rose were reinstated tonight do you think anybody would hire him as a manager? I would be shocked if he were to ever get a major league managing gig. He is too old, too out of touch and has too much baggage.

I don't think he wants back in baseball purely for the money though, he genuinely loves and misses the game. Baseball was his entire life for decades. I bet he makes more money signing autographs endlessly than he would as a manager anyway. He has made millions signing anything and everything for $50+ per pop for the last 25 years.

As for putting Pete in the HOF, I don't think it makes any difference if he wants in or not. As I mentioned before I don't think the HOF is built for the players. It is built for the fans. It is a special honor for the player to be sure, but honoring the players is not the main reason the HOF exists. The Hall of Fame exists to honor and celebrate the game of baseball. The actual HOF player plaque gallery is only a small part of the whole museum. Also, I don't believe for one second that he truly does not want to be in the HOF. He will cry like a baby when/if he gets in. :thumbup:

edabbs44
07-24-2012, 09:15 PM
How are performance enhancing drugs worse than reflex drugs/stimulants that players took for decades. What bad really came from the steroids era players? So marginal players did not make it to the show because they didn't want to use steroids. If I was a marginal player and could have gotten to the show because of roids then I would have dropped my pants and stuck that needle in my butt before you could blink. What Pete did was to take away the nature of competition. If a man is addicted to gambling and is willing to bet on his team that what realistically makes you think he wouldn't bet against his team. Let's not forget that there are strong ties between Pete and steroids. He may not have taken them but he brought steroid using trainers and distributors to the clubhouse while he was a manager.

The real questions is in 20 years how are people going to think about the steroids players? It has been over 20 years for Pete and people still are strongly against him and how he disgraced the game. Even joe jackson is remembered more for the 1919 world series than being a great player.

In 20 years some of these players may not be around anymore because of the steroid usage. Look at pro wrestling and the NFL for some examples.

savafan
07-24-2012, 09:18 PM
How are performance enhancing drugs worse than reflex drugs/stimulants that players took for decades. What bad really came from the steroids era players? So marginal players did not make it to the show because they didn't want to use steroids. If I was a marginal player and could have gotten to the show because of roids then I would have dropped my pants and stuck that needle in my butt before you could blink. What Pete did was to take away the nature of competition. If a man is addicted to gambling and is willing to bet on his team that what realistically makes you think he wouldn't bet against his team. Let's not forget that there are strong ties between Pete and steroids. He may not have taken them but he brought steroid using trainers and distributors to the clubhouse while he was a manager.

The real questions is in 20 years how are people going to think about the steroids players? It has been over 20 years for Pete and people still are strongly against him and how he disgraced the game. Even joe jackson is remembered more for the 1919 world series than being a great player.

I can't speak for everyone, but I will likely still look at the steroid era as the bigger black mark on the game than what Pete did, even 20 years on. Those guys turned the game that I love into a sham for much of my childhood and on into early adulthood. I saw the numbers of the guys that my dad grew up rooting for fall to guys who chemically altered their bodies to boost their stats, while also breaking federal laws. I watched my team struggle to be able to afford good players due to soaring salaries, salaries that were soaring due to an increase in numbers caused by chemistry.

AtomicDumpling
07-24-2012, 09:19 PM
Pete Rose accepted a permanent ban from baseball.

The Hall of Fame does not accept players who have been permanently banned.

It's pretty simple.

Did he really have a choice? Pete still maintains Giamatti promised him the ban would be lifted after a period of time, then reneged on the bargain and changed the deal as soon as Pete signed it. Rules can be changed anytime they want to change them too. Many major changes have been made in baseball since that time.

savafan
07-24-2012, 09:22 PM
You are right, he wants to get back in baseball more than he wants to get into the Hall of Fame. If Rose were reinstated tonight do you think anybody would hire him as a manager? I would be shocked if he were to ever get a major league managing gig. He is too old, too out of touch and has too much baggage.

I don't think he wants back in baseball purely for the money though, he genuinely loves and misses the game. Baseball was his entire life for decades. I bet he makes more money signing autographs endlessly than he would as a manager anyway. He has made millions signing anything and everything for $50+ per pop for the last 25 years.

As for putting Pete in the HOF, I don't think it makes any difference if he wants in or not. As I mentioned before I don't think the HOF is built for the players. It is built for the fans. It is a special honor for the player to be sure, but honoring the players is not the main reason the HOF exists. The Hall of Fame exists to honor and celebrate the game of baseball. The actual HOF player plaque gallery is only a small part of the whole museum. Also, I don't believe for one second that he truly does not want to be in the HOF. He will cry like a baby when/if he gets in. :thumbup:

Let's be honest, doesn't the guy deserve the right to be able to earn a living? Pete's not the smartest guy in the world, and his one marketable skill is baseball. It's really all he knows. His other marketable skill is being Pete Rose, the celebrity. He's lost his chance to earn a living in baseball, and we continue to ridicule him and say that he hasn't changed his lifestyle because he still makes money off of his image, as though we expect him to somehow become a lawyer or a doctor. :laugh:

Raisor
07-24-2012, 09:30 PM
Did he really have a choice? Pete still maintains Giamatti promised him the ban would be lifted after a period of time, then reneged on the bargain and changed the deal as soon as Pete signed it. .

Pete also mainted that he didn't bet on baseball for years.

I'm not prepared to take Pete's "word" on anything.

He accepted the ban.

AtomicDumpling
07-24-2012, 09:42 PM
Let's be honest, doesn't the guy deserve the right to be able to earn a living? Pete's not the smartest guy in the world, and his one marketable skill is baseball. It's really all he knows. His other marketable skill is being Pete Rose, the celebrity. He's lost his chance to earn a living in baseball, and we continue to ridicule him and say that he hasn't changed his lifestyle because he still makes money off of his image, as though we expect him to somehow become a lawyer or a doctor. :laugh:

Oh I agree to some extent. His punishment has far, far exceeded what his crimes merited. Comparing him to the likes of the 1919 Black Sox who threw the World Series is ludicrous in my opinion. That was 100x worse than anything Pete did. Pete broke a major rule and deserved harsh punishment, but receiving the same discipline as the guys who conspired with organized crime to intentionally throw the World Series is way out of line with any sense of American justice and fairness. Baseball completely overreacted to the situation when they could have handled it like the NBA handled Michael Jordan's gambling issues. Just because the rulebook said they could ban him for life doesn't make it right any more than the laws in the Middle East that say a father has the right to pour acid on his daughter's face if she disobeys. Pete Rose has paid a tremendous price for betting on baseball. Keeping a total ban in place on him is just hateful and vindictive at this point. Baseball's inept leadership totally mishandled the situation and now they just look foolish. I am not a Pete Rose fan. I came along too late to have really seen him in action. If I owned a baseball team I certainly would not hire Pete Rose as a coach or manager. In fact Pete kind of creeps me out when I see him on TV in his weird outfits next to busty young women. But I can spot an injustice when I see one.

AtomicDumpling
07-24-2012, 09:43 PM
Pete also mainted that he didn't bet on baseball for years.

I'm not prepared to take Pete's "word" on anything.

He accepted the ban.

So that makes it OK? He had no choice. The punishment was far too harsh.

RedsBaron
07-25-2012, 07:32 AM
How are performance enhancing drugs worse than reflex drugs/stimulants that players took for decades. What bad really came from the steroids era players? So marginal players did not make it to the show because they didn't want to use steroids. If I was a marginal player and could have gotten to the show because of roids then I would have dropped my pants and stuck that needle in my butt before you could blink. What Pete did was to take away the nature of competition. If a man is addicted to gambling and is willing to bet on his team that what realistically makes you think he wouldn't bet against his team. Let's not forget that there are strong ties between Pete and steroids. He may not have taken them but he brought steroid using trainers and distributors to the clubhouse while he was a manager.

The real questions is in 20 years how are people going to think about the steroids players? It has been over 20 years for Pete and people still are strongly against him and how he disgraced the game. Even joe jackson is remembered more for the 1919 world series than being a great player.
What bad came from the steroids era? Are you serious?
Great, you would have broken the law and cheated in order to make the major leagues; so be it. Those players who were honest were placed in the quandry of either having to lie, cheat and break the law in order to "even the odds" or be placed at a competitive disadvantage because they were of good character.
I've read articles praising players such as Barry Larkin and Ken Griffey Jr. because they presumably were clean and never juiced. By your logic Larkin and Junior should be condemned if they failed to take PEDs. Had they juiced perhaps that would have given them enough of a boost to get their teams more championships.
Those players who juiced were the ones who truly took away the nature of fair competition. They didn't win because they were better athletes or trained harder or were just lucky; no, they palced their thumbs on the scales of competition and won because they cheated.
Ben Johnson lost his gold medal in the '88 Olympics because he cheated, he took PEDs allowing him to gain an unfair advantage. MLB players who took PEDs did the same thing.
Most people seem to assume that Barry Bonds started using PEDs after the '98 season. Assuming that he did so, suppose he had instead started prior to 1990. Bonds came up small in the NLCS games he played for the Pirates in the early 1990s whereas he was a monster for the Giants in 2002. Suppose the PED fed Bonds had made the difference in 1990. That would be one championship banner that does not fly in Cincinnati.

dougdirt
07-25-2012, 07:38 AM
So that makes it OK? He had no choice. The punishment was far too harsh.

Was it? The rules is on the wall in every clubhouse in baseball. Pete knew the rule. Pete knew all about Joe Jackson and the 1919 White Sox. He had his choice and it was to not gamble on baseball. He made his choice.

RedsBaron
07-25-2012, 07:50 AM
I do believe Craig Biggio should be an easy chocie for the HOF. Seven time all star, four Gold Gloves, five Silver Sluggers. In addition to his 3060 hits (yes, he hung around a couple of years too long to get there but still he did get there), Biggio twice lead the league in runs, with a high of 146 runs scored; three times he lead in doubles, with a high of 56; he lead the league in steals; and he was just a tremendous all around player. In 1997 he hit .309 with 22 HR, 81 RBI, 146 runs scored, 47 steals, a .415 OBP and a .501 SLG.
For his career Biggio had a line of .281 .363 .433 with 291 HRs, 1175 RBI and 1844 runs scored.
Biggio's numbers are not that different from those of Barry Larkin. Barry's career line was .295 .371 .44 with 198 HRs, 960 RBI and 1329 runs scored.
Larkin had a career WAR of 67.1 compared to Biggio's 62.1. In their best four year string, each of which came from 1995 through 1998, Larkin's WAR scores were 5.7, 6.9, 3.4 and 5.5 and Biggio's were 6.2, 5.2, 9.3 and 6.4.
Biggio's Hall of Fame Monitor score is 169, well above the 100 score of the average member of the HOF.
The ten most similar players to Biggio in MLB history are, in order, Robin Yount, Derek Jeter, Joe Morgan, Paul Molitor, Roberto Alomar, Cal Ripken, Johnny Damon, Brooks Robinson, Lou Whitaker and George Brett. Seven of those players are in the HOF and Jeter will be.

RedsBaron
07-25-2012, 08:01 AM
Pete Rose accepted a permanent ban from baseball.

The Hall of Fame does not accept players who have been permanently banned.

It's pretty simple.

Technically the Hall of Fame adopted a rule making players who were on the permanent suspension list uneligible for election to the HOF after Rose accepted his suspension. At the time Rose accepted the ban he was still eligible to be elected to the HOF.

Chip R
07-25-2012, 09:16 AM
Technically the Hall of Fame adopted a rule making players who were on the permanent suspension list uneligible for election to the HOF after Rose accepted his suspension. At the time Rose accepted the ban he was still eligible to be elected to the HOF.

Actually, he wasn't since he hadn't been retired for 5 years.

RedsBaron
07-25-2012, 09:46 AM
Actually, he wasn't since he hadn't been retired for 5 years.

True. IIRC Selig et al pressured the HOF to adopt the rule making banned players uneligible so that Rose could not be considered when he had been retired after five years.

AtomicDumpling
07-25-2012, 09:53 AM
Was it? The rules is on the wall in every clubhouse in baseball. Pete knew the rule. Pete knew all about Joe Jackson and the 1919 White Sox. He had his choice and it was to not gamble on baseball. He made his choice.

As explained earlier it is ludicrous to compare Pete's betting with the 1919 White Sox who conspired with organized crime to throw the World Series. Any fair-minded person can see that Pete's infraction was bad (and stupid) but was far, far less severe than Joe Jackson's. Lumping those two together is like saying assault is just as bad as murder. When Rule 21 was instituted the goal was to prevent gamblers from throwing games or shaving runs, not to "execute" people for making casual bets on the side. A competent commissioner would have seen the disparity between the crime and the punishment in this case and adjusted the punishment accordingly, just like the NBA commissioner did with Michael Jordan a few years later. Baseball's inept leadership turned a great ambassador for the game into a pariah unnecessarily. Pete deserved a strong punishment but not a total lifetime ban. I think most people can see that.

westofyou
07-25-2012, 10:11 AM
Poor Pete, asked to not bet on horses by Hutch, chased by Kuhn and caught by Bart

A whole career entrapped in a gambling habit, one that got him in trouble with the Feds, one that involved guys selling steroids at his Golds gym when they weren't placing bets for him, a career that found him eventually placing bets in the Reds clubhouse

Taken advantage of by baseballs elite, erudite east coasters

A modern day Jim Devlin he is

brad1176
07-25-2012, 10:32 AM
As explained earlier it is ludicrous to compare Pete's betting with the 1919 White Sox who conspired with organized crime to throw the World Series. Any fair-minded person can see that Pete's infraction was bad (and stupid) but was far, far less severe than Joe Jackson's. Lumping those two together is like saying assault is just as bad as murder. When Rule 21 was instituted the goal was to prevent gamblers from throwing games or shaving runs, not to "execute" people for making casual bets on the side. A competent commissioner would have seen the disparity between the crime and the punishment in this case and adjusted the punishment accordingly, just like the NBA commissioner did with Michael Jordan a few years later. Baseball's inept leadership turned a great ambassador for the game into a pariah unnecessarily. Pete deserved a strong punishment but not a total lifetime ban. I think most people can see that.

21(d) BETTING ON BALL GAMES. Any player, umpire, or club official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform shall be declared ineligible for one year. Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.

Pete knew the rule, ignored it, and received the consequence. We can 'yeah but' this to death, the fact is the rule is very clear.

AtomicDumpling
07-25-2012, 11:06 AM
Poor Pete, asked to not bet on horses by Hutch, chased by Kuhn and caught by Bart

A whole career entrapped in a gambling habit, one that got him in trouble with the Feds, one that involved guys selling steroids at his Golds gym when they weren't placing bets for him, a career that found him eventually placing bets in the Reds clubhouse

Taken advantage of by baseballs elite, erudite east coasters

A modern day Jim Devlin he is

... meanwhile the noble seekers of justice turned a blind eye while the elite owners cashed in on the chemically-built bodies of Incredible Hulk sluggers that stole the glory from the honest ballplayers. Wasn't that against federal law? Yes it was. Their actions had a bigger effect on the game than Pete Rose's betting. How many of those felons got banned for life from baseball? Barry Bonds? Nope. Mark McGwire? Nope. Sammy Sosa? Nope. Roger Clemens? Nope. Andy Pettitte? Nope. Rafael Palmiero? Nope. How many of the felons that snorted huge quantities of cocaine in MLB clubhouses got banned for life from baseball? Dwight Gooden? Nope. Dave Parker? Nope. Ron Washington? Nope. You mean only gruff, rude, crude, obnoxious, hard-nosed, blue-collar Pete Rose was singled-out for special treatment? Yep.

.. but wait! Ferguson Jenkins and Steve Howe were both suspended for life -- and then reinstated to play again! How is that possible? It turns out baseball does have precedent for lifetime suspensions being relieved after all.

Did you know Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays were both banned from baseball for life in 1983 for consorting with gamblers and casinos? Then both were reinstated two years later. Could Pete Rose have expected similar treatment when he was banned just a couple years later? Hmm. That could explain his willingness to accept his lifetime ban, since "lifetime bans" were not actually lifetime bans.

When Bart Giammati suspended Pete Rose he granted him a concession: Rose could apply for reinstatement once every year. This is not a rumor or merely based on Pete Rose's word. Rose has actually officially applied for reinstatement four times over the years and has been denied or ignored without an answer each time.

George Steinbrenner was permanently banned in 1990 for hiring private detectives and gamblers to dig up dirt on Dave Winfield. Steinbrenner's son ran the team until 1993 when George was reinstated from his lifetime ban by Bud Selig.

Marge Schott was banned for life in 1996 for racism and anti-Semitism, saying bad things about minorities and good things about Hitler. She was reinstated just two years later by Bud Selig.

It turns out there is a LOT of precedent for permanently banned people to be reinstated to the game. Actually there is no such thing as a "Lifetime Ban" in baseball, only a "Permanently Ineligible List". Many if not most of the people that have been on this list at one time or another were eventually reinstated.

So anybody who thinks a lifetime ban actually means that person has no chance to get back in the game is incorrect.

AtomicDumpling
07-25-2012, 11:21 AM
21(d) BETTING ON BALL GAMES. Any player, umpire, or club official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform shall be declared ineligible for one year. Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.

Pete knew the rule, ignored it, and received the consequence. We can 'yeah but' this to death, the fact is the rule is very clear.

See the prior post to learn how it is not as clear as you suppose. Even if it were that clear it doesn't make the rule any more fair. A bad rule is a bad rule no matter how clear it is. Pete has already served far more punishment than he deserved. He has served far more punishment than dozens of players that have done much more damage to the game than Pete Rose did. Justice requires more than just an entry in a rulebook.

As I said before, I am not a Pete Rose fan or supporter. I was too young to realize how special the Big Red Machine was at the time. I didn't become a baseball fan until 1981 when I was 12 and by then Pete Rose was old, fat and slow. I wasn't born and raised in Cincinnati either so I have no special connection to him. He is just another old player to me. If Pete Rose were to be reinstated right now I would certainly not want the Reds to hire him. My opinion here is based solely on a neutral concept of justice. Pete has been punished enough. He has suffered one of the harshest penalties anybody in baseball has ever suffered. Time to let cooler heads prevail and address the issue with some rationality.

westofyou
07-25-2012, 11:34 AM
... meanwhile the noble seekers of justice turned a blind eye while the elite owners cashed in on the chemically-built bodies of Incredible Hulk sluggers that stole the glory from the honest ballplayers. Wasn't that against federal law? Yes it was. Their actions had a bigger effect on the game than Pete Rose's betting. How many of those felons got banned for life from baseball? Barry Bonds? Nope. Mark McGwire? Nope. Sammy Sosa? Nope. Roger Clemens? Nope. Andy Pettitte? Nope. Rafael Palmiero? Nope. How many of the felons that snorted huge quantities of cocaine in MLB clubhouses got banned for life from baseball? Dwight Gooden? Nope. Dave Parker? Nope. Ron Washington? Nope. You mean only gruff, rude, crude, obnoxious, hard-nosed, blue-collar Pete Rose was singled-out for special treatment? Yep.

.. but wait! Ferguson Jenkins and Steve Howe were both suspended for life -- and then reinstated to play again! How is that possible? It turns out baseball does have precedent for lifetime suspensions being relieved after all.

Did you know Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays were both banned from baseball for life in 1983 for consorting with gamblers and casinos? Then both were reinstated two years later. Could Pete Rose have expected similar treatment when he was banned just a couple years later? Hmm. That could explain his willingness to accept his lifetime ban, since "lifetime bans" were not actually lifetime bans.

When Bart Giammati suspended Pete Rose he granted him a concession: Rose could apply for reinstatement once every year. This is not a rumor or merely based on Pete Rose's word. Rose has actually officially applied for reinstatement four times over the years and has been denied or ignored without an answer each time.

George Steinbrenner was permanently banned in 1990 for hiring private detectives and gamblers to dig up dirt on Dave Winfield. Steinbrenner's son ran the team until 1993 when George was reinstated from his lifetime ban by Bud Selig.

Marge Schott was banned for life in 1996 for racism and anti-Semitism, saying bad things about minorities and good things about Hitler. She was reinstated just two years later by Bud Selig.

It turns out there is a LOT of precedent for permanently banned people to be reinstated to the game. Actually there is no such thing as a "Lifetime Ban" in baseball, only a "Permanently Ineligible List". Many if not most of the people that have been on this list at one time or another were eventually reinstated.

So anybody who thinks a lifetime ban actually means that person has no chance to get back in the game is incorrect.

I don't recall ever saying he can't get back in

I said I don't believe he deserved too

Big difference

As for all the other fellers you mentioned, I'm well aware of them and their troubles and issues

None of it is related to Rose in my eyes

AtomicDumpling
07-25-2012, 11:38 AM
I don't recall ever saying he can't get back in

I said I don't believe he deserved too

Big difference

As for all the other fellers you mentioned, I'm well aware of them and their troubles and issues

None of it is related to Rose in my eyes

You can't see how ridiculous it is that he got punished far more harshly than people who did far more damage to the game?

I think too many people have let their personal dislike of Pete Rose taint their better judgment. I think I have exposed the hypocrisy in some people's opinions, so I will leave it at that and move on to another topic.

westofyou
07-25-2012, 11:46 AM
You can't see how ridiculous it is that he got punished far more harshly than people who did far more damage to the game?

I think too many people have let their personal dislike of Pete Rose taint their better judgment. I think I have exposed the hypocrisy in some people's opinions, so I will leave it at that and move on to another topic.

Oh.. I'm biased, a hypocrite I get it,... I've never pondered this at all, never dug through anything in the games history to shape my opinion on this subject, never thought of it before today.

And since I'm all of the aforementioned you're done with this because you can't sway my opinion?

Nice.

AtomicDumpling
07-25-2012, 11:50 AM
Oh.. I'm biased, a hypocrite I get it,... I've never pondered this at all, never dug through anything in the games history to shape my opinion on this subject, never thought of it before today.

And since I'm all of the aforementioned you're done with this because you can't sway my opinion?

Nice.

Is that all you got? I guess I touched a nerve. If you can't beat someone's argument you don't have to get all defensive and put words in their mouth that they did not say. I stated my opinion clearly and backed it up with a strong foundation and then moved on to the next topic like a good poster does. I was not talking directly to you and trying to convince you. I already know your opinion is locked in. I never said you have a lack of knowledge or or have never thought about it before, so don't act like I did.

pedro
07-25-2012, 11:52 AM
You can't see how ridiculous it is that he got punished far more harshly than people who did far more damage to the game?

I think too many people have let their personal dislike of Pete Rose taint their better judgment. I think I have exposed the hypocrisy in some people's opinions, so I will leave it at that and move on to another topic.

You're a regular Encyclopedia Brown. Where were you when the Warren Commission needed you?

AtomicDumpling
07-25-2012, 11:54 AM
You're a regular Encyclopedia Brown. Where were you when the Warren Commission needed you?

I guess I win when the logical arguments stop and the personal attacks start coming! Yaaay me!

pedro
07-25-2012, 11:56 AM
I guess I win when the logical arguments stop and the personal attacks start coming! Yaaay me!

Yes, you win. Maybe Pete will sign a ball for you.

If you've got the jack.

westofyou
07-25-2012, 11:58 AM
Is that all you got? I guess I touched a nerve. If you can't beat someone's argument you don't have to get all defensive and put words in their mouth that they did not say. I stated my opinion clearly and backed it up with a strong foundation and then moved on to the next topic like a good poster does. I was not talking directly to you and trying to convince you. I already know your opinion is locked in. I never said you have a lack of knowledge or or have never thought about it before, so don't act like I did.

You used the words "hypocrisy" and wrote that some have "personal dislike of Pete Rose taint their better judgment."

In a post that quoted me did you not?

Did I put those words in your mouth?

pedro
07-25-2012, 12:01 PM
Pete made his own bed and I don't feel sorry for him. He's where he is because of his own actions and it doesn't have anything to do with anyone but himself.

AtomicDumpling
07-25-2012, 12:05 PM
You used the words "hypocrisy" and wrote that some have "personal dislike of Pete Rose taint their better judgment."

In a post that quoted me did you not?

Did I put those words in your mouth?

When someone quotes something it means that everything they say in their post is in direct reference to the person that wrote the quote?

I said "I think some people....". I did not say " I think westofyou...", therefore I was talking about some people rather than westofyou. Maybe westofyou is in that group, maybe not.

Just because somebody disagrees with you doesn't mean you have to be so defensive. I take it as a badge of honor when my opinion differs from the masses.

AtomicDumpling
07-25-2012, 12:06 PM
Yes, you win. Maybe Pete will sign a ball for you.

If you've got the jack.

I am sure he would sign a ball if I paid him for it. He seems to do a LOT of that. He won't be getting any of my money though. If I were to start collecting autographs Pete Rose would not be anywhere near the top of my want list.

AtomicDumpling
07-25-2012, 12:09 PM
Pete made his own bed and I don't feel sorry for him. He's where he is because of his own actions and it doesn't have anything to do with anyone but himself.

That is true for certain. He screwed up big time and he has paid the price, maybe a little too much of a price. He probably could have gotten treated less harshly if he had admitted it up front and apologized as he should have done. But all in all I think it is clear that his punishment makes no sense compared to the much more lenient punishments (or lack thereof) that other violators have received despite committing more egregious and harmful violations.

westofyou
07-25-2012, 12:09 PM
When someone quotes something it means that everything they say in their post is in direct reference to the person that wrote the quote?

I said "I think some people....". I did not say " I think westofyou...", therefore I was talking about some people rather than westofyou. Maybe westofyou is in that group, maybe not.

Just because somebody disagrees with you doesn't mean you have to be so defensive. I take it as a badge of honor when my opinion differs from the masses.
People have been disagreeing with me all over this thread, yet none quoted me and used the word hypocrite in the reply.

But hey it's a mistake you weren't talking about me directly, fine I can now sleep at night again.

I'm now at peace and can resume my work day in a manner that is beneficial to my life.

pedro
07-25-2012, 12:24 PM
That is true for certain. He screwed up big time and he has paid the price, maybe a little too much of a price. He probably could have gotten treated less harshly if he had admitted it up front and apologized as he should have done. But all in all I think it is clear that his punishment makes no sense compared to the much more lenient punishments (or lack thereof) that other violators have received despite committing more egregious and harmful violations.

I don't feel like Pete has done anything but make a fool of himself since he was banned from baseball and I don't think he deserves to have anything to do with the game. I don't give two bits about anyone else. I'm talking about PETE ROSE.

Always Red
07-25-2012, 12:26 PM
Seems as if we hash through this once a year or so, and that's fine.

Couple of thoughts:

Rose broke a rule which is posted in every dugout and on the clubhouse walls. He did it, apparently, for years. MLB had dealt with problems with gambling before and laid down the law. Rose chose to proceed anyway. I think there is a very, very fine line between the idea that Rose used his knowledge to bet on games, and if Rose used his power as a manager to influence the outcome of games. Unless one is in the mind of Pete Rose, we will never know. That's something the Dowd Report could also never tell us. Those of us who loved Rose on the field (and he was my boyhood hero), want to think the best of him, and knowing his competitive spirit, we just KNOW that he would never throw a game, but would only and always bet on the Reds to win. Well, as pedro (I think) stated above, we know better now to believe anything Pete Rose says. I still get sad every time I think of the HoF without Rose in it.

As for the steroids, yes they were illegal to take, both federally and in many states, but as far as I know, there was no "Rule 21" equivalent for performance enhancing drugs back during that time. Seems like quibbling, I know. If a player today does steroids or HGH and is caught, well, now there are rules and penalties in place that did not exist 10-15 years ago. That's the difference, to me.

I'm happy to let the BBWAA sort things out for now, and maybe a Veterans Committee down the road will "correct" any omissions made by the BBWAA.

Just a thought.

jojo
07-25-2012, 01:13 PM
You can't see how ridiculous it is that he got punished far more harshly than people who did far more damage to the game?

I think too many people have let their personal dislike of Pete Rose taint their better judgment. I think I have exposed the hypocrisy in some people's opinions, so I will leave it at that and move on to another topic.

The conclusion bolded above is an opinion at best and begging the question at worst.

I personally feel that betting on baseball does far more damage to the game than Roger Clemens throwing a mph or two faster to Barry Bonds.

Hoosier Red
07-25-2012, 01:35 PM
... meanwhile the noble seekers of justice turned a blind eye while the elite owners cashed in on the chemically-built bodies of Incredible Hulk sluggers that stole the glory from the honest ballplayers. Wasn't that against federal law? Yes it was. Their actions had a bigger effect on the game than Pete Rose's betting. How many of those felons got banned for life from baseball? Barry Bonds? Nope. Mark McGwire? Nope. Sammy Sosa? Nope. Roger Clemens? Nope. Andy Pettitte? Nope. Rafael Palmiero? Nope. How many of the felons that snorted huge quantities of cocaine in MLB clubhouses got banned for life from baseball? Dwight Gooden? Nope. Dave Parker? Nope. Ron Washington? Nope. You mean only gruff, rude, crude, obnoxious, hard-nosed, blue-collar Pete Rose was singled-out for special treatment? Yep.

.. but wait! Ferguson Jenkins and Steve Howe were both suspended for life -- and then reinstated to play again! How is that possible? It turns out baseball does have precedent for lifetime suspensions being relieved after all.

Did you know Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays were both banned from baseball for life in 1983 for consorting with gamblers and casinos? Then both were reinstated two years later. Could Pete Rose have expected similar treatment when he was banned just a couple years later? Hmm. That could explain his willingness to accept his lifetime ban, since "lifetime bans" were not actually lifetime bans.

When Bart Giammati suspended Pete Rose he granted him a concession: Rose could apply for reinstatement once every year. This is not a rumor or merely based on Pete Rose's word. Rose has actually officially applied for reinstatement four times over the years and has been denied or ignored without an answer each time.

George Steinbrenner was permanently banned in 1990 for hiring private detectives and gamblers to dig up dirt on Dave Winfield. Steinbrenner's son ran the team until 1993 when George was reinstated from his lifetime ban by Bud Selig.

Marge Schott was banned for life in 1996 for racism and anti-Semitism, saying bad things about minorities and good things about Hitler. She was reinstated just two years later by Bud Selig.

It turns out there is a LOT of precedent for permanently banned people to be reinstated to the game. Actually there is no such thing as a "Lifetime Ban" in baseball, only a "Permanently Ineligible List". Many if not most of the people that have been on this list at one time or another were eventually reinstated.

So anybody who thinks a lifetime ban actually means that person has no chance to get back in the game is incorrect.

The problem with all the parallels that you bring up is that he broke a rule that led to being placed on the permanantly ineligble list. That much everyone agrees on.

He also has the ability to apply for reinstatement once per year. But regardless of whether Baseball allowed people back into the game for other crimes, or what Pete thought would happen when he agreed to the ban, or what Bart Giamatti thought when he agreed to the ban, or what you or I thought would happen, baseball has no obligation to remove him from that list.

And to be honest, since the ban, he didn't really give baseball a reason to remove him from the list.

What actions has he shown to bring get Baseball's attention and say "HEY! I deserve to be reinstated!"

-Lying about betting on baseball for 14 years?
-Continuing to seek employment in a Casino? Using the infamy created by his banishment to make a buck?

- I don't know if he still gambles or not, but if so, that by itself would disqualify him from ever being reinstated in my book.


Now, you might say, "That's not fair, a man has a right to employment, what's he going to do?"

And you're right, he has a right to seek employment wherever he chooses, just like he has a right to apply for reinstatement once per year.

But the burden is on Pete to truly show that he deserves to be back in baseball. After 20 years, the burden isn't on baseball to prove that it should keep Pete out.

Hoosier Red
07-25-2012, 01:35 PM
DP

mbgrayson
07-25-2012, 02:10 PM
Seems as if we hash through this once a year or so, and that's fine.

Couple of thoughts:

Rose broke a rule which is posted in every dugout and on the clubhouse walls. He did it, apparently, for years. MLB had dealt with problems with gambling before and laid down the law. Rose chose to proceed anyway. ...


As for the steroids, yes they were illegal to take, both federally and in many states, but as far as I know, there was no "Rule 21" equivalent for performance enhancing drugs back during that time. Seems like quibbling, I know. If a player today does steroids or HGH and is caught, well, now there are rules and penalties in place that did not exist 10-15 years ago. That's the difference, to me.

Actually, I think steroids are indeed implicated by Rule 21. Here is the entire text of Rule 21 :


MAJOR LEAGUE RULES
Rule 21
MISCONDUCT

(a) MISCONDUCT IN PLAYING BASEBALL. Any player or person connected with a
club who shall promise or agree to lose, or to attempt to lose, or to fail
to give his best efforts towards the winning of any baseball game with
which he is or may be in any way concerned; or who shall intentionally
fail to give his best efforts towards the winning of any such baseball
game, or who shall solicit or attempt to induce any player or person
connected with a club to lose, or attempt to lose, or to fail to give his
best efforts towards the winning of any baseball game with which such
other player or person is or may be in any way connected; or who, being
solicited by any person, shall fail to inform his Major League President
and the Commissioner.

(b) GIFT FOR DEFEATING COMPETING CLUB. Any player or person connected
with a club who shall offer or give any gift or reward to a player or
person connected with another club for services rendered or supposed to
be or to have been rendered in defeating or attempting to defeat a
competing club, and any player or person connected with a club who
shall solicit or accept from a player connected with another club any
gifts or reward for any such services rendered, or supposed to have
been rendered, or who having been offered any such gift or reward,
shall fail to inform his League President or the Commissioner
immediately of such offer, and of all facts and circumstances therewith,
shall be declared ineligible for not less than three (3) years.

(c) GIFTS TO UMPIRES Any player or person connected with a club, who
shall give, or offer to give, any gift or reward to an umpire for services
rendered, or supposed to be or to have been rendered, in defeating or
attempting to defeat a competing club, or for the umpire's decision on
anything connected with the playing of a baseball game; and any umpire
who shall render, or promise or agree to render, any such decision
otherwise than on its merits, or who shall solicit or accept such gifts
or reward, or having been solicited to render any such decision
otherwise than on its merits, shall fail to inform the League President
or the Commissioner immediately of such offer or solicitation, and all
facts and circumstances therewith, shall be declared permanently ineligible.

(d) BETTING ON BALL GAMES. Any player, umpire, or club official or
employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in
connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform shall be declared
ineligible for one year.

Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall
bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which
the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.

(e) VIOLENCE OR MISCONDUCT IN INTERLEAGUE GAMES. In case of any physical
attack or other violence upon an umpire by a player, or by an umpire upon
a player, or of other misconduct by an umpire or a player, during or in
connection with any interleague Major League game or any exhibition game
of a Major League Club with a club or team not a member of the same league,
the Commissioner shall impose upon the offender or offenders such fine,
suspension, ineligibility or other penalty, as the facts may warrant in
the judgement of the Commissioner.

(f) OTHER MISCONDUCT. Nothing herein contained shall be construed as
exclusively defining or otherwise limiting acts, transactions, practices
or conduct not to be in the best interests of Baseball; and any and all
other acts, transactions, practices or conduct not to be in the best
interests of Baseball are prohibited and shall be subject to such
penalties, including permanent ineligibility, as the facts in the
particular case may warrant.

(g) RULE TO BE KEPT POSTED. A printed copy of this Rule shall be kept
posted in each clubhouse.


So if you look at section 'f' of Rule 21, I would argue that this is exactly what covers steroid use: "Nothing herein contained shall be construed as exclusively defining or otherwise limiting acts, transactions, practices or conduct not to be in the best interests of Baseball; and any and all other acts, transactions, practices or conduct not to be in the best interests of Baseball are prohibited and shall be subject to such penalties, including permanent ineligibility, as the facts in the particular case may warrant."

No, it is not as clear or specific as the language about betting on games, but it is there nonetheless.

mbgrayson
07-25-2012, 02:11 PM
Sorry, double post....

Big Klu
07-25-2012, 02:20 PM
True. IIRC Selig et al pressured the HOF to adopt the rule making banned players uneligible so that Rose could not be considered when he had been retired after five years.

I think Fay Vincent was Commissioner at the time.

Always Red
07-25-2012, 02:34 PM
Actually, I think steroids are indeed implicated by Rule 21. Here is the entire text of Rule 21 :




So if you look at section 'f' of Rule 21, I would argue that this is exactly what covers steroid use: "Nothing herein contained shall be construed as exclusively defining or otherwise limiting acts, transactions, practices or conduct not to be in the best interests of Baseball; and any and all other acts, transactions, practices or conduct not to be in the best interests of Baseball are prohibited and shall be subject to such penalties, including permanent ineligibility, as the facts in the particular case may warrant."

No, it is not as clear or specific as the language about betting on games, but it is there nonetheless.

yes, you can say it is a catch all, to cover anything else specifically not mentioned.

Has MLB added any other rules covering steroid use or any PED's? If so, then I would take that as admission that it is not covered sufficiently there in Rule 21.

My point is not to make excuses for the Steroid Gang. It's just to show the difference I see between managers who bet on baseball games they are directly influencing and the Roiders, based upon what the rules were at the time of the dastardly deeds.

jojo
07-25-2012, 04:40 PM
Has MLB added any other rules covering steroid use or any PED's? If so, then I would take that as admission that it is not covered sufficiently there in Rule 21.

Fay Vincent sent a memo to owners in the early 90's that explicitely stated steroid use was against the rules. However since there was no testing program, there were no penalties for PED use. MLB began testing everyone not protected by the CBA in 2001 and then penalties for using PEDS and rules governing testing for them were established for everyone on the 40 man roster through collective bargaining in 2002-2003.

I get that some argue that PEDs stole the well-earned glory from previous record holders but history tells us that both Babe Ruth and Mickey Mantle missed games due to complications arising from injections of substances meant to enhance their performance. Baseball has a long history of performance enhancement. It's probably appropriate to think of the designer PEDs of the steroid era as being the long sought Holy Grail for the boys of summer.

Always Red
07-25-2012, 05:03 PM
Fay Vincent sent a memo to owners in the early 90's that explicitely stated steroid use was against the rules. However since there was no testing program, there were no penalties for PED use. MLB began testing everyone not protected by the CBA in 2001 and then penalties for using PEDS and rules governing testing for them were established for everyone on the 40 man roster through collective bargaining in 2002-2003.

I get that some argue that PEDs stole the well-earned glory from previous record holders but history tells us that both Babe Ruth and Mickey Mantle missed games due to complications arising from injections of substances meant to enhance their performance. Baseball has a long history of performance enhancement. It's probably appropriate to think of the designer PEDs of the steroid era as being the long sought Holy Grail for the boys of summer.

jojo, thanks for mentioning the Vincent memo. That search for the Holy Grail has been going on for some time now...

http://www.thenation.com/article/bonding-babe#


But Ruth didn't just stop at the watering hole to find an edge. According to The Baseball Hall of Shame's Warped Record Book, by Bruce Nash, Allan Zullo and Bob Smith, the Bambino fell ill one year attempting to inject himself with extract from a sheep's testes. This effort by more than a few athletes of his era to seek the healing and strengthening properties of testosterone prefigured the craze for steroids. When Ruth fell ill from his attempted enhancement, the media was told that Ruth merely had "a bellyache."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/20/opinion/20chafets.html?_r=1


In 1961, during his home run race with Roger Maris, Mickey Mantle developed a sudden abscess that kept him on the bench. It came from an infected needle used by Max Jacobson, a quack who injected Mantle with a home-brew containing steroids and speed. In his autobiography, Hank Aaron admitted once taking an amphetamine tablet during a game. The Pirates’ John Milner testified at a drug dealer’s trial that his teammate, Willie Mays, kept “red juice,” a liquid form of speed, in his locker. (Mays denied it.) After he retired, Sandy Koufax admitted the he was often “half high” on the mound from the drugs he took for his ailing left arm.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/news/2003/02/27/wells_drugs_ap/


"Down in the minors, where virtually every flat-broke, baloney-sandwich-eating Double-A prospect is chasing after the same, elusive, multimillion-dollar payday, the use of anabolic homer-helpers is flat-out booming," Wells wrote. "At just about 12 bucks per shot, those steroid vials must be seen as a really solid investment."

He writes that amphetamines are so commonplace that "stand in the middle of your clubhouse and walk 10 feet in any direction, chances are you'll find what you need."

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2005-05-03-steroids-house_x.htm


Former major league pitcher Tom House used steroids during his career and said performance-enhancing drugs were widespread in baseball in the 1960s and 1970s, the San Francisco Chronicle reported Tuesday.
House, perhaps best known for catching Hank Aaron's 715th home run ball in 1974 in the Atlanta Braves' bullpen, said he and several teammates used amphetamines, human growth hormone and "whatever steroid" they could find in order to keep up with the competition.

"I pretty much popped everything cold turkey," House said. "We were doing steroids they wouldn't give to horses. That was the '60s, when nobody knew. The good thing is, we know now. There's a lot more research and understanding."

westofyou
07-25-2012, 05:10 PM
Baseball has a long history of performance enhancement. It's probably appropriate to think of the designer PEDs of the steroid era as being the long sought Holy Grail for the boys of summer.

1968: Don Drysdale set the scoreless inning mark with six consecutive shutouts,
58 2/3 scoreless innings in a row.

Drysdale also said his vision was so blurry from all the painkillers he was taking that he could not read the electronic scoreboard in the stadium.

steig
07-25-2012, 08:53 PM
Actually, I think steroids are indeed implicated by Rule 21. Here is the entire text of Rule 21 :




So if you look at section 'f' of Rule 21, I would argue that this is exactly what covers steroid use: "Nothing herein contained shall be construed as exclusively defining or otherwise limiting acts, transactions, practices or conduct not to be in the best interests of Baseball; and any and all other acts, transactions, practices or conduct not to be in the best interests of Baseball are prohibited and shall be subject to such penalties, including permanent ineligibility, as the facts in the particular case may warrant."

No, it is not as clear or specific as the language about betting on games, but it is there nonetheless.

So, if a player used steroids in the 70's when they were not illegal would it still be against rule 21 in your opinion? Or would it be viewed similar to nutritional and fitness supplements?