 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Off Topic » what was pete rose thinking?
ME
I said B
Its been 14 years and the over/under was 13 years on him admitting it.
what was pete rose thinking?
January 09, 2004 at 04:09PM View BBCode
[url]http://espn.go.com/page2/s/thinking/040108/rose.html[/url]I said B
Its been 14 years and the over/under was 13 years on him admitting it.
tysonlowery
407-488-7383
Someone from AP Sports 2 days ago accidently mailed out their entire rolodex of phone numbers. Basically every top figure in sports has had to change their number as a result.
January 09, 2004 at 04:14PM View BBCode
You can call him up and ask him yourself:407-488-7383
Someone from AP Sports 2 days ago accidently mailed out their entire rolodex of phone numbers. Basically every top figure in sports has had to change their number as a result.
Duff77
Now I'm sorry, but you DO NOT BET ON THE GAME. And it makes no difference if he still maintains he never bet against the Reds. Betting FOR the Reds is just as bad... Think about it: If you're a manager, and you bet that your team will win on a Friday night against the last place team in the league... Do you push that starter a little bit? Do you go to the ace reliever on short rest? Do you potentially screw up the next four or five games against a division rival, which you HAVEN'T bet on, in order to win the one you did? Why wouldn't you? And if you lose games after the fact, how is that any different than throwing them in the first place?
Perserving the integrity of the game requires that every decision made on the field be done in the interests of the team--not any one individual or group of individuals. Now, of course, in today's game, plenty of guys dog it on ground balls with their hamstrings (and next year's free agent contract) in mind. But the fact that the game has so little integrity left doesn't excuse what Rose did.
THAT SAID...I still think he should be in the hall. I believe he should be banned for life, and not allowed to take place in any official ceremoines, but I believe that AS A PLAYER, he should be inducted. I can make that concession. The crimes he committed were as a manager, not a player--the player Pete Rose still deserves a place in Cooperstown... Why? Because the GAME deserves to have it's greatest players enshrined, even if the players themselves aren't worthy.
And I think it's a just punishment. Put Rose in the hall, but don't ever let him inside a ballpark without a ticket.
January 09, 2004 at 04:36PM View BBCode
I've never felt more like Pete Rose doesn't deserve to get into the hall of fame. It's one thing to bet on baseball, another to lie about it, another to keep lying about it for 14 years... But what takes the cake is that when he finally owns up to it, he does it (from what I've heard) completely without apology. At least when Clinton finally owned up to doing nasty things with "that woman," he pretended to be truly sorry about it. Rose couldn't even give us that much (again, this is from what I hear).Now I'm sorry, but you DO NOT BET ON THE GAME. And it makes no difference if he still maintains he never bet against the Reds. Betting FOR the Reds is just as bad... Think about it: If you're a manager, and you bet that your team will win on a Friday night against the last place team in the league... Do you push that starter a little bit? Do you go to the ace reliever on short rest? Do you potentially screw up the next four or five games against a division rival, which you HAVEN'T bet on, in order to win the one you did? Why wouldn't you? And if you lose games after the fact, how is that any different than throwing them in the first place?
Perserving the integrity of the game requires that every decision made on the field be done in the interests of the team--not any one individual or group of individuals. Now, of course, in today's game, plenty of guys dog it on ground balls with their hamstrings (and next year's free agent contract) in mind. But the fact that the game has so little integrity left doesn't excuse what Rose did.
THAT SAID...I still think he should be in the hall. I believe he should be banned for life, and not allowed to take place in any official ceremoines, but I believe that AS A PLAYER, he should be inducted. I can make that concession. The crimes he committed were as a manager, not a player--the player Pete Rose still deserves a place in Cooperstown... Why? Because the GAME deserves to have it's greatest players enshrined, even if the players themselves aren't worthy.
And I think it's a just punishment. Put Rose in the hall, but don't ever let him inside a ballpark without a ticket.
ME
January 09, 2004 at 07:57PM View BBCode
Put him in the hall after he dies, even if thats 20 years in the future. That way futute generations will be able to know what kind of player he was, but Pete Rose will never gain anything from it while he is still alive.
skierdude44
January 09, 2004 at 08:15PM View BBCode
i have been one of the people who said just let him into the hall cuz with his stats he definetly deserves to be there. but now it is obvious that he wrote this book and did the interview just for money and i think that he intentionally did all this on the hall of fame induction week. he hasnt shown that he has an ounce of sorrow for wut he did. he had his chance 14 months ago to clear everything up and be forgiven but that got screwed up (not exactly sure though.) im not even that mad that he lied for 14 years but i am mad that now he has admitted it he isnt even sorry. i think that he should get in the hall but shouldnt be allowed in a baseball stadium ever.
happy
January 10, 2004 at 07:47PM View BBCode
yeah i heard about that thing. some of the numbers are funny, like it has some players who have been dead for 15 or more years. Rose shouldnt make it, but he will. they told him from the beginning that if he admits it then they will let him in. Bud Selig will do most anything to try to get people to stop hating him, so he will do whatever he thinks will boost his popularity
tysok
He should be in the Hall... there is no doubt of this. His numbers are some of the best ever put up as a player. Still the all time hits leader etc...
Why should he be kept out? Because of something he did as a manager? Hmm... let's take a look at the Hall of Fame...
Frank Chance, player for the Cubs 1898 to 1912, NY 1913 and 14. Manager for the Cubs from 05 to 12, managed the Yanks 1913 and 14, and Boston in 1923....
Let's go to the HOF website and look at his plaque and the stats there... hmm... the stats only list him as a player... no record anywhere of managing Boston in 23... But the plaque reads as a manager.
How bout Sparkey Anderson... he played for Philadelphia in 1959... no mention of playing anywhere on the HOF.
Tommy Lasorda? Played for Brooklyn in 54 and 55, KC in 56... no mention of playing in HOF.
How about Bob Lemon? Played for Cleveland 1946 to 58. Managed KC 1970, 71 and 72. Chicago AL 77 and 78 NY AL in 78 and 79, and again in 81 and 82.
"ROBERT GRANVILLE LEMON
CLEVELAND A.L., 1941-1942 AND 1946-1958
GAINED COVETED 20-VICTORY CLASS SEVEN
TIMES IN NINE-YEAR SPAN. BECAME ONLY
SIXTH PITCHER IN 20TH CENTURY TO POST
20 OR MORE WINS IN SEVEN SEASONS. HAD
207-128 RECORD FOR CAREER. PACED A.L.
OR TIED FOR LEAD IN VICTORIES THREE
TIMES, SHUTOUTS ONCE, INNINGS PITCHED
FOUR SEASONS AND COMPLETE GAMES FIVE
YEARS. HURLED NO-HITTER IN 1948."
No mention of ever managing.
I'm sure there's more, probably every HOFer that wanted to manage has a managing record. But for the most part their inducted for either managing or playing with no mention of the other on the plaque...
Take rogers Hornsby for a quick example, led St. Louis to the WS in 26 and Chicago to the NL pennant in 32... no mention of managing on the plaque.
Rose SHOULD be in the Hall of Fame. And if you don't like what he did as a manager then ommit that on the plaque... they probably would have anyhow.
January 11, 2004 at 01:01AM View BBCode
What's really ridiculous is the length of time the argument has been going on... 14 years?He should be in the Hall... there is no doubt of this. His numbers are some of the best ever put up as a player. Still the all time hits leader etc...
Why should he be kept out? Because of something he did as a manager? Hmm... let's take a look at the Hall of Fame...
Frank Chance, player for the Cubs 1898 to 1912, NY 1913 and 14. Manager for the Cubs from 05 to 12, managed the Yanks 1913 and 14, and Boston in 1923....
Let's go to the HOF website and look at his plaque and the stats there... hmm... the stats only list him as a player... no record anywhere of managing Boston in 23... But the plaque reads as a manager.
How bout Sparkey Anderson... he played for Philadelphia in 1959... no mention of playing anywhere on the HOF.
Tommy Lasorda? Played for Brooklyn in 54 and 55, KC in 56... no mention of playing in HOF.
How about Bob Lemon? Played for Cleveland 1946 to 58. Managed KC 1970, 71 and 72. Chicago AL 77 and 78 NY AL in 78 and 79, and again in 81 and 82.
"ROBERT GRANVILLE LEMON
CLEVELAND A.L., 1941-1942 AND 1946-1958
GAINED COVETED 20-VICTORY CLASS SEVEN
TIMES IN NINE-YEAR SPAN. BECAME ONLY
SIXTH PITCHER IN 20TH CENTURY TO POST
20 OR MORE WINS IN SEVEN SEASONS. HAD
207-128 RECORD FOR CAREER. PACED A.L.
OR TIED FOR LEAD IN VICTORIES THREE
TIMES, SHUTOUTS ONCE, INNINGS PITCHED
FOUR SEASONS AND COMPLETE GAMES FIVE
YEARS. HURLED NO-HITTER IN 1948."
No mention of ever managing.
I'm sure there's more, probably every HOFer that wanted to manage has a managing record. But for the most part their inducted for either managing or playing with no mention of the other on the plaque...
Take rogers Hornsby for a quick example, led St. Louis to the WS in 26 and Chicago to the NL pennant in 32... no mention of managing on the plaque.
Rose SHOULD be in the Hall of Fame. And if you don't like what he did as a manager then ommit that on the plaque... they probably would have anyhow.
Pages: 1