Turn Off Ads?

View Poll Results: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

Voters
39. You may not vote on this poll
  • Hall should forgive them all

    18 46.15%
  • Dont let any of the cheaters in, keep the Hall clean

    11 28.21%
  • could care less, disgusted by all of it

    10 25.64%
Page 1 of 8 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 109

Thread: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

  1. #1
    Member icehole3's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Posts
    3,109

    Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    They should either forgive them all or forget them all.

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #2
    Member Highlifeman21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Bristol, just around the corner from ESPN
    Posts
    8,694

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    There's a big difference between steroids and betting on baseball

    Guys on the juice will eventually get in

    Pete may never get in, and if he does he won't be alive when it happens

  4. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Pook's Hill
    Posts
    1,551

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    Rose was not banned from baseball or the HOF because he cheated.

    He bet on baseball. By betting on baseball he became indebted to people who had a vested interest in the outcome of baseball games. He did all of this while in a position to directly effect the outcome of many, many baseball games. Connect the dots and try and understand why it is MUCH more serious than taking PEDS (including greenies), doctoring a bat, doctoring baseball, rubbing out the batter's box, running outside the baseline, peeking at the catcher, deking a baserunner, or stealing signs.

  5. #4
    Redsmetz redsmetz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Winton Place
    Posts
    11,167

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    Quote Originally Posted by puca View Post
    Rose was not banned from baseball or the HOF because he cheated.

    He bet on baseball. By betting on baseball he became indebted to people who had a vested interest in the outcome of baseball games. He did all of this while in a position to directly effect the outcome of many, many baseball games. Connect the dots and try and understand why it is MUCH more serious than taking PEDS (including greenies), doctoring a bat, doctoring baseball, rubbing out the batter's box, running outside the baseline, peeking at the catcher, deking a baserunner, or stealing signs.
    I don't disagree with this, but think Rose should be permitted in the Hall (as should Joe Jackson). The premise of the original post though, suggesting that those who took steroids are junkies is laughable. We're talking a sport whose players have boozed it up, popped pills and now used steroids or HDH. When the entire history is cleaned up (and it can't be), then lets get all high and mighty about "junkies".
    ďIn the same way that a baseball season never really begins, it never really ends either.Ē - Lonnie Wheeler, "Bleachers, A Summer in Wrigley Field"

    The Baseball Emporium - Books & Things, that's Rallyonion.com

    The Baseball Bookstore

    http://tsc-sales.com/
    http://tscsales.blogspot.com/
    http://silverscreenbooks.com/

  6. #5
    nothing more than a fan Always Red's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Cincy West
    Posts
    5,042

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    As long as Gaylord Perry is in the Hall of Fame, the doors can remain open to nearly anyone who can put the proper numbers on the back of his baseball card. Anything else is hypocrisy.

    I think Rose will be voted in by the Veteran's Committee long after he dies. Probably Jackson will, too, maybe at the same time.

    I think the steroid era guys will eventually all walk free, grandfathered in.

    Just my opinion.
    Last edited by Always Red; 02-10-2009 at 07:41 AM.

  7. #6
    Member Strikes Out Looking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,451

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    Put in Shoeless Joe and then we can talk about the rest of them.

  8. #7
    smells of rich mahogany deltachi8's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    3,001

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    this again?
    Nothing to see here. Please disperse.

  9. #8
    breath westofyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    42,677

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    Pete Rose is not only the hit king he's the games most famous liar and Cincinnati's favorite son.

  10. #9
    Member NJReds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    5,432

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    Let'em all in, I say. Just give an accurate history. Pete Rose's entry should say banned from baseball for gambling. ARod's should say "admitted steriod user."

    Someone on ESPN radio this morning said the Hall of Fame "is a museum, not the Vatican." How can you have a museum about the history of the game without the hits leader, HR leader, etc.?

    What about other cheaters? The guys who used speed in the 60s and 70s and 80s?
    Scuffers, spitballers and admitted cheaters like Gaylord Perry?

    Ty Cobb is one of the vilest people on the planet, yet he is celebrated in the HOF.
    "The players make the manager, it's never the other way." - Sparky Anderson

  11. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    7,176

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    This is perhaps the best sumnation of my feelings on the subject;
    http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/a...r_the_hall.php

    I don't know exactly where steroid use should sit on the hierarchy of sins against the game: I think it's worse than throwing spitballs and not as bad as throwing games, but how much worse and how much less noxious I'm not entirely sure. But I do know that to date, the only otherwise-deserving players who've been denied entry to the Hall - Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson - have been those who were guilty of infractions that got them banned them from the game for life. Now perhaps steroid users should be banned for life, but the fact remains that A-Rod and others stand accused of violating a rule that carried no penalty save treatment at the time that they (and dozens if not hundreds of other players whose names haven't been leaked) broke it, and that today only gets you banned outright if you're a three-time offender. And I think it's a good rule of thumb that if you're allowed to continue playing major league baseball after committing a given infraction, you shouldn't be disqualified - informally or formally - from its Hall of Fame.
    When people say that I donít know what Iím talking about when it comes to sports or writing, I think: Man, you should see me in the rest of my life.
    ---Joe Posnanski

  12. #11
    Member cincrazy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    South Vienna, OH
    Posts
    4,371

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    Let them all in. You're honoring their on the field accomplishments. Yes, Pete bet on baseball. And yes, Barry and Big Mac and A-Rod and the Rocket and so on altered themselves to gain an edge. But it is what it is. Put them in the all and acknowledge their errors. But to leave them out is silly, IMO. I respect the opinion of the people that think they shouldn't get in, because I thought that way at one point in time. But as Jayson Stark said, the all time hit leader will be out of the Hall, the all time home run leader, one of the greatest right-handed pitchers of all time... etc. etc. I want to be able to take my kids there 20 years from now and say "This is who they are, this is what they did, and here's what they accomplished." We can't pretend that it never happened. It can be a good learning tool, IMO. "See this guy? HE screwed up. Don't let the same happen to you."

  13. #12
    Red's fan mbgrayson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    2,052

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    I won't vote in this poll, because i would let Rose in and not the steroid users.

    What Rose did, betting on baseball while managing the Reds, was wrong and should keep him out of the game for good. Why should we ever take a chance that he is again violating the betting rules while in uniform?

    However, to me the Hall of Fame is not about the players character or morals, it is about whether that player was one of the best of his era. Ty Cobb was a nasty man in most respects, and was hated by his peers. There was one fairly credible allegation involving Cobb being involved in a scandal where a game was actually thrown. However, he was also one of the best players of all time.

    I feel that Rose fits in the category of one of the best players ever. I know, he is a liar and a compulsive gambler. But to me, his accomplishments while playing justify inclusion in the HOF.

    The steroid guys put up stats that I simply don't trust. Some, like Bonds , would be HOF worthy based on what they did before they were on performance enhancing drugs. Others, like ARod, may have also accomplished much after they quit. But how can we ever know what portion of their records were tainted?

    With Rose, we know that his gambling and lying did not taint his actual playing baseball, or the resulting records. We cannot say the same about Bonds, Canseco, McGuire, or ARod.
    __________________
    ďThis one was a perfect one. I donít know if I can find a better one, better timing. He [Price] really said some great things there. It really encouraged us to go back and do what we do. Ö I didnít know he could speak like that.Ē Brayan Pena 5/21/14

  14. #13
    breath westofyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    42,677

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    With Rose, we know that his gambling and lying did not taint his actual playing baseball, or the resulting records
    Do we really?

    MLB started investigating Rose and Gambling in 1970, that's a long time before he was manager.

  15. #14
    Beer is good!! George Anderson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    4,737

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    Quote Originally Posted by westofyou View Post

    MLB started investigating Rose and Gambling in 1970, that's a long time before he was manager.
    I don't doubt you but where did you hear this?? What did they find?
    "Boys, I'm one of those umpires that misses 'em every once in a while so if it's close, you'd better hit it." Cal Hubbard

  16. #15
    SERP deep cover ops WebScorpion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    In the Ether
    Posts
    5,401

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    Shoeless Joe Jackson was given a lifetime ban for his infractions (real or perceived) and his life is over. I would induct him now.

    Pete Rose knew what he was doing when he bet on baseball and he signed an agreement to his lifetime ban. I would induct him in the Hall of Fame the first year after his passing.

    As far as I can tell, one of the reasons (probably not the MAIN reason) behind using steroids is to attain numbers sufficient for Hall of Fame induction. I would not want to encourage such actions and so would subject them to the same treatment...posthumous induction.

    So basically, you don't give up the right to be in the Hall, you just give up the right to be there at the celebration.

    "Okay you guys, pair up in threes!" --Yogi Berra


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25