 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Off Topic » Rose in the Hall?
Me522
Rose in the Hall?
July 20, 2004 at 07:17PM View BBCode
Simple Question. Will Pete Rose get into the Hall of Fame? I think he should. The man's got over 4000 hits and has played in the most games. i think he is in.
arodtoo
July 20, 2004 at 07:45PM View BBCode
he will be once baseball gets rid of the greatest baseball innovator of all time(interleague play, expansion, all-star game=home field adavanedge, the list goes on). He deserves to be in the hall, but he should have to wait, and rightfully so, considering he broke the rules, maybe put him in the hall after he dies, that would be fair.
FuriousGiorge
I really, really hope that was meant as a joke.
July 21, 2004 at 12:02AM View BBCode
Originally posted by arodtoo
the greatest baseball innovator of all time(interleague play, expansion, all-star game=home field adavanedge, the list goes on)
I really, really hope that was meant as a joke.
Meathead44
I used to see him as this guy that do whatever it took to win. Charlie Hustle. Now I see him as Charlie the Hustler. His on the field exploits were more a form of self-glorification and antics that of a egomanic showboat. He didn't give everything he had for baseball, he used baseball to get what he wanted.
Now, that being said, I couldn't care less whether he gets in or not. He has put up the numbers to be there, so he should probably get in eventually. There are plenty of other worthless asses in the Hall. I say let his induction wait until after he's dead so that he can gain nothing from it.
July 21, 2004 at 12:24AM View BBCode
Pete Rose's book tour and interviews during that tour completely changed how I see him as a person and a player. Acting like he is the victim in this case and that he is being persecuted. Refusing to admit he did anything wrong. Inferring that he should have been given some leeway because of who he was. Admitting that if given another chance, he do the same thing again because that's just who he is. Never caring about the hall or baseball until he realized it would help him sell more books.I used to see him as this guy that do whatever it took to win. Charlie Hustle. Now I see him as Charlie the Hustler. His on the field exploits were more a form of self-glorification and antics that of a egomanic showboat. He didn't give everything he had for baseball, he used baseball to get what he wanted.
Now, that being said, I couldn't care less whether he gets in or not. He has put up the numbers to be there, so he should probably get in eventually. There are plenty of other worthless asses in the Hall. I say let his induction wait until after he's dead so that he can gain nothing from it.
arodtoo
July 21, 2004 at 12:56AM View BBCode
yes i was being sarcastic. I can't think of a baseball comish who has done anything worse for the game of baseball, i mean than you add in that he would allow spider webs on bases! yet he wouldn't allow that one pitcher to wear a flag on his hat becasue it was against policy.
Unclescam777
With that said, I loved Rose as a player but he's the type of man I just want to bash repeatedly in the head with a wrench. It's not because I don't like him, it's because he's acting so stupid. Maybe we can beat some sense into him. He isn't a victim because the no gambling policy is posted in every clubhouse, he was warned of the consequences every single time he walked into the clubhouse. He lied for many years, took his supporters for a ride, then spit in their faces when he admitted he really did gamble. He made us all a bunch of liars. He not only made a fool of himself but he made fools of those who stood by him.
Nice guy or not, he still belongs in the HOF
July 21, 2004 at 01:14AM View BBCode
Well I think he should just because the Hall of Fame should be based on what you did on the field as a player. If we judged character half the people in the hall wouldn't be there. Ty Cobb was a womanizer, Mickey Mantle an alcoholic, and the majority of players inducted before 1950 were strong racists. The HOF should be about baseball playing ability and that alone. You don't have to be a nice guy to play baseball well.With that said, I loved Rose as a player but he's the type of man I just want to bash repeatedly in the head with a wrench. It's not because I don't like him, it's because he's acting so stupid. Maybe we can beat some sense into him. He isn't a victim because the no gambling policy is posted in every clubhouse, he was warned of the consequences every single time he walked into the clubhouse. He lied for many years, took his supporters for a ride, then spit in their faces when he admitted he really did gamble. He made us all a bunch of liars. He not only made a fool of himself but he made fools of those who stood by him.
Nice guy or not, he still belongs in the HOF
FuriousGiorge
Jeeze, I hate to even discuss this topic, since it's pretty much been done to death, but this is one of those misconceptions that just swirls around the Pete Rose issue and it drives me nuts.
This has absolutely, positively, 100% nothing to do with character. Most people don't even see gambling as that much of a vice anymore. ESPN shows poker, talk radio discusses odds all the time, and casinos exist just about everywhere in this country. Gambling isn't really seen as a sin, and if Pete's character is questionable it has a lot more to do with his ego and self-importance than it does with his addiction to bet-making.
There are bad characters in the Hall, guys who in the grand scheme of things are much worse than Pete. But none of those guys was ever shown conclusively to have bet on (or fixed) the game of baseball. Pete did. He bet on the game. He committed the one cardinal sin of a participant in major sports, in that he turned the conclusion of the game from one based solely on the actions of the players on the field into one that was affected by backroom dealings and money under the table. It's the one thing professional sports leagues don't, and shouldn't, tolerate from participants. Baseball was almost killed by gambling: the 1919 World Series is the most famous example, but that was only the culmination of a lot of other shady dealings involving the game in the years prior. Pete broke the rule, and he deserves punishment.
That all being said, I'm not sure that Pete doesn't deserve some leniency now. He has done nothing right, basically, since his punishment was handed out, and has only upped the ante over the last year or so with his self-promotion and unapologetic demeanor. But Pete says he never bet against the Reds, and I think I believe him. There is some distinction to be made between fixing games/betting against your own team and betting for them. I don't want Pete in the Hall, I don't need Pete in the Hall, but if they let him in now I won't be that upset. If he had been contrite during his book tour, he'd be writing his Hall speech right now. He wasn't, and so he's still not that close. But...he's been punished and I think maybe the game would benefit from being able to close this debate once and for all.
Of course, don't get me started on Joe Jackson....
July 21, 2004 at 02:30AM View BBCode
Originally posted by Unclescam777
Well I think he should just because the Hall of Fame should be based on what you did on the field as a player. If we judged character half the people in the hall wouldn't be there.
Jeeze, I hate to even discuss this topic, since it's pretty much been done to death, but this is one of those misconceptions that just swirls around the Pete Rose issue and it drives me nuts.
This has absolutely, positively, 100% nothing to do with character. Most people don't even see gambling as that much of a vice anymore. ESPN shows poker, talk radio discusses odds all the time, and casinos exist just about everywhere in this country. Gambling isn't really seen as a sin, and if Pete's character is questionable it has a lot more to do with his ego and self-importance than it does with his addiction to bet-making.
There are bad characters in the Hall, guys who in the grand scheme of things are much worse than Pete. But none of those guys was ever shown conclusively to have bet on (or fixed) the game of baseball. Pete did. He bet on the game. He committed the one cardinal sin of a participant in major sports, in that he turned the conclusion of the game from one based solely on the actions of the players on the field into one that was affected by backroom dealings and money under the table. It's the one thing professional sports leagues don't, and shouldn't, tolerate from participants. Baseball was almost killed by gambling: the 1919 World Series is the most famous example, but that was only the culmination of a lot of other shady dealings involving the game in the years prior. Pete broke the rule, and he deserves punishment.
That all being said, I'm not sure that Pete doesn't deserve some leniency now. He has done nothing right, basically, since his punishment was handed out, and has only upped the ante over the last year or so with his self-promotion and unapologetic demeanor. But Pete says he never bet against the Reds, and I think I believe him. There is some distinction to be made between fixing games/betting against your own team and betting for them. I don't want Pete in the Hall, I don't need Pete in the Hall, but if they let him in now I won't be that upset. If he had been contrite during his book tour, he'd be writing his Hall speech right now. He wasn't, and so he's still not that close. But...he's been punished and I think maybe the game would benefit from being able to close this debate once and for all.
Of course, don't get me started on Joe Jackson....
Duff77
My answer to this question is very simple: Let Rose in the hall, and continue the ban.
Rose deserves to make the hall as a player. If it's about who he is as a person, then there are about 100 other guys we need to throw out of the hall. If we're not doing that, then Rose deserves to be enshrined.
Rose was banned as a manager. He bet on the game. That is as inexcusable now as it was in 1919 and that ban should never, ever be lifted. But he committed that infraction as a manager, not as a player. The player should go to the hall. The manager should continue to be banned for life.
July 21, 2004 at 03:55AM View BBCode
Furious, your new avatar is destroying my screen. At least I think it's you, Charlie Brown.My answer to this question is very simple: Let Rose in the hall, and continue the ban.
Rose deserves to make the hall as a player. If it's about who he is as a person, then there are about 100 other guys we need to throw out of the hall. If we're not doing that, then Rose deserves to be enshrined.
Rose was banned as a manager. He bet on the game. That is as inexcusable now as it was in 1919 and that ban should never, ever be lifted. But he committed that infraction as a manager, not as a player. The player should go to the hall. The manager should continue to be banned for life.
Duff77
July 21, 2004 at 03:56AM View BBCode
Nevermind about the avatar. IE flipped out on me (does that sometimes).
Unclescam777
Now there's a real victim. He didn't even get banned for throwing the World Series(and his stats proved that), he was banned because he knew the players who were throwing the game and didn't rat them out. It's quite sad really, he was really a special player and would more than likely be in the HOF had he not been loyal to his friends.
Rose's story is nothing like Jackson's. Rose had a full career and didn't gamble until after his playing days were over. He shouldn't be allowed in baseball, he broke the holiest of rules. But his name as a player should be mentioned in the hall of fame so that future generations may know who Charlie Hustle was. Though he'd probably be in now anyway if he wasn't so damn stubborn. I really need a wrench...
July 21, 2004 at 09:23AM View BBCode
Of course, don't get me started on Joe Jackson....
Now there's a real victim. He didn't even get banned for throwing the World Series(and his stats proved that), he was banned because he knew the players who were throwing the game and didn't rat them out. It's quite sad really, he was really a special player and would more than likely be in the HOF had he not been loyal to his friends.
Rose's story is nothing like Jackson's. Rose had a full career and didn't gamble until after his playing days were over. He shouldn't be allowed in baseball, he broke the holiest of rules. But his name as a player should be mentioned in the hall of fame so that future generations may know who Charlie Hustle was. Though he'd probably be in now anyway if he wasn't so damn stubborn. I really need a wrench...
Meathead44
Pete Rose deserves to be in the Hall for his performance as a player. But, I'd hate to see him get any enjoyment or money from being inducted. I have a hard time feeling anything for a guy that has absolutely no regard for the game of baseball except for what it can do for him.
Overturn the lifetime ban and change the sentence to a 100 year ban. He can be eligible then.
July 21, 2004 at 12:27PM View BBCode
The Joe Jackson situation makes it even harder for me to support Pete Rose. It was proven that Joe Jackson did not take any money for throwing the World Series and his stats would support it. The Commish upheld the lifetime ban because he knew about it and did nothing. You have to wonder how many players would be banned for life under similar situations. How many players knew Steve Howe or Dwight Gooden were doing drugs? How about steroid offenders?Pete Rose deserves to be in the Hall for his performance as a player. But, I'd hate to see him get any enjoyment or money from being inducted. I have a hard time feeling anything for a guy that has absolutely no regard for the game of baseball except for what it can do for him.
Overturn the lifetime ban and change the sentence to a 100 year ban. He can be eligible then.
Duff77
Wait a second...then what are we supposed to do when Barry Bonds comes up? Keep him out of the hall because he's a selfish jerk? How about Rickey Henderson? He doesn't deserve to go--he didn't even know John Olerud was his teammate. We can't start judging players on their attitude. We've got to judge them on how they played the game, regardless of who they played it for.
Now, to me, betting on the game *is* a reflection of how you played it, because it's part of the basic code of conduct. Just like corking your bat is...or putting sandpaper in your glove. Rose, despite his attitude, never violated the basic code of conduct as a player. The player Pete Rose absolutely should be in the hall.
The MAN Pete Rose, on the other hand, should remained banned for the balance of his life. No ceremonies at the ballpark, no hall of fame induction speeches, no MLB sponsored honors of any kind. He's banned and should stay that way. But the player deserves a plague in the hall. Baseball is cheapening it's own history if it doesn't fully acknolwedge who Pete Rose is and what he represents. The ban acknowledges the crime he committed against the game--the Hall of Fame should acknolwedge his accomplishments as a player.
July 21, 2004 at 11:52PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Meathead44
I have a hard time feeling anything for a guy that has absolutely no regard for the game of baseball except for what it can do for him.
Wait a second...then what are we supposed to do when Barry Bonds comes up? Keep him out of the hall because he's a selfish jerk? How about Rickey Henderson? He doesn't deserve to go--he didn't even know John Olerud was his teammate. We can't start judging players on their attitude. We've got to judge them on how they played the game, regardless of who they played it for.
Now, to me, betting on the game *is* a reflection of how you played it, because it's part of the basic code of conduct. Just like corking your bat is...or putting sandpaper in your glove. Rose, despite his attitude, never violated the basic code of conduct as a player. The player Pete Rose absolutely should be in the hall.
The MAN Pete Rose, on the other hand, should remained banned for the balance of his life. No ceremonies at the ballpark, no hall of fame induction speeches, no MLB sponsored honors of any kind. He's banned and should stay that way. But the player deserves a plague in the hall. Baseball is cheapening it's own history if it doesn't fully acknolwedge who Pete Rose is and what he represents. The ban acknowledges the crime he committed against the game--the Hall of Fame should acknolwedge his accomplishments as a player.
ME
Joe Jackson - he broke the rules too. He took money from gamblers. He just didn't intentionally play bad. Still, he broke the rules, he's out.
July 22, 2004 at 01:53AM View BBCode
No, he broke the rules, he never feels sorry for it, he's out of baseball. Maybe after he dies, when he cant benefit at all for it.Joe Jackson - he broke the rules too. He took money from gamblers. He just didn't intentionally play bad. Still, he broke the rules, he's out.
Unclescam777
July 22, 2004 at 02:04AM View BBCode
Joe Jackson didn't take the money, he was kicked out of baseball for knowing about the deal and not telling anyone. He was an accessory to the crime, not a direct criminal. There's a big difference. You can't compare Joe Jackson to Pete Rose. One case involved breaking a player's heart who did nothing but live baseball, and on controversial grounds. The other case involves a player who doesn't give a damn about anyone but himself, feels no remorse, and is only looking for personal gain. There is also evidence, there was no evidence in Joe Jackson's case, it was all hearsay.
Meathead44
It is the BASEBALL Hall of Fame, not the BASEBALL PLAYERS Hall of Fame. Rose is banned from being a player as well as a manager, bat boy, everything.
For him to get the ban lifted, he's got to make some positive steps. Heck, he admitted that if given another chance that HE WOULD NOT CHANGE. Do you think convicted criminals are paroled if they opening admit that they will continue to committ the crime that got them in jail in the first place?
I can't believe ANYONE can side with Rose on this. It would be a complete slap in the face of baseball if they reinstated him now after the crap he's said.
He can get the ban lifted and get voted into the Hall when he's dead and he can no longer say completely assinine things and can gain absolutely nothing from it.
Pete Rose can rot into obscurity for all I care. The legacy of baseball can do without another self-center player who thinks he's above the game.
BTW, if Bonds is ever caught using steroids, then he can go rot too.
July 22, 2004 at 02:38AM View BBCode
There's a difference between Rose and Bonds and Henderson. Bonds and Henderson aren't banned for life. I'm not taking away Rose's right to get into the Hall based on his attitude. He took that away all by himself. I'm refusing to give it back to him because he's a selfish jackass.It is the BASEBALL Hall of Fame, not the BASEBALL PLAYERS Hall of Fame. Rose is banned from being a player as well as a manager, bat boy, everything.
For him to get the ban lifted, he's got to make some positive steps. Heck, he admitted that if given another chance that HE WOULD NOT CHANGE. Do you think convicted criminals are paroled if they opening admit that they will continue to committ the crime that got them in jail in the first place?
I can't believe ANYONE can side with Rose on this. It would be a complete slap in the face of baseball if they reinstated him now after the crap he's said.
He can get the ban lifted and get voted into the Hall when he's dead and he can no longer say completely assinine things and can gain absolutely nothing from it.
Pete Rose can rot into obscurity for all I care. The legacy of baseball can do without another self-center player who thinks he's above the game.
BTW, if Bonds is ever caught using steroids, then he can go rot too.
robby
July 22, 2004 at 06:58PM View BBCode
so by being associated with the crime he gets a lifetime ban, when he couldnt do anything about it... and being loyal by not ratting out his teammates, only to encourage the character of the game... how disappointing...
Unclescam777
http://www.blackbetsy.com/jjrelate.htm
July 22, 2004 at 08:23PM View BBCode
yes, you don't know the Joe Jackson story? Shoeless Joe had the potential to be one of the greatest to ever play the game. His stats aren't out of this world but those who saw him play said it was magical, everything he did he seemed to do so gracefully....perfectly. He was banned from baseball because of the 1919 Black Sox scandel, which is when his team threw the WS. Here's some facts on the scandel, pertaining to "shoeless" Joe Jacksonhttp://www.blackbetsy.com/jjrelate.htm
robby
July 22, 2004 at 08:40PM View BBCode
oh ok i know what your talkin bout now. when you said "shoeless" it all clicked. yea, thats bullshit.
FuriousGiorge
July 22, 2004 at 08:47PM View BBCode
Joe Jackson was a bum, with guilty knowledge and 5000 dollars in hand. He played poorly in the games the Sox threw; that in itself doesn't prove anything, but it's a far cry from the "He hit .375" apologists. Yeah, he hit .375 overall, but he accumulated his hits and runs driven in in games the Sox tried to win. He signed a written confession and gave grand jury testimony in which he admitted to receiving $5000 (he was promised $20,000) for taking part in the fix. No, he wasn't a ringleader like Chick Gandil, but even an idiot could figure out what that money was for. If it's a question of keeping your mouth shut to protect your teammates or speaking out for the good of the game, I know which one I think is more important. Joe Jackson forfeited his right to be honored among the greats when he accepted that $5000
JLlamas
July 22, 2004 at 10:02PM View BBCode
Rose deserves to be in the hall of fame based on how great a player he was, he should be punshed for his actions of of the field, but the punshiments should not count against him as a baseball player.
Meathead44
1. He tried to tell Commiskey, before, during and after. Commiskey didn't want to look bad so he kept a lid on it, before, during and after.
2. He never accepted the money. It was left for him, he took it and tried to give it to Commiskey.
3. He hit 6 for 17 with 3 doubles, a homer, 3 runs and 3 rbi in the losses.
4. He made 2 outstanding catches in 2 different games that they lost.
5. He asked to be benched for the World Series, so that he wouldn't be a part of it.
6. He signed the confession out of a guilty conscience and not guilty actions.
7. EVERYONE testified that Jackson was involved other than knowing about it.
From what I've read about the situation and about Jackson from several different sources I'd have to say that calling Jackson a bum is way off base. He was uneducated and simple. He was very humble, mostly because of that fact. If Joe Jackson is a bum, then Rose is Satan himself.calling Jackson a bum is way off base. He was uneducated and simple. He was very humble, mostly because of that fact. If Joe Jackson is a bum, then Rose is Satan himself.
July 22, 2004 at 10:41PM View BBCode
A few things about Jackson:1. He tried to tell Commiskey, before, during and after. Commiskey didn't want to look bad so he kept a lid on it, before, during and after.
2. He never accepted the money. It was left for him, he took it and tried to give it to Commiskey.
3. He hit 6 for 17 with 3 doubles, a homer, 3 runs and 3 rbi in the losses.
4. He made 2 outstanding catches in 2 different games that they lost.
5. He asked to be benched for the World Series, so that he wouldn't be a part of it.
6. He signed the confession out of a guilty conscience and not guilty actions.
7. EVERYONE testified that Jackson was involved other than knowing about it.
From what I've read about the situation and about Jackson from several different sources I'd have to say that calling Jackson a bum is way off base. He was uneducated and simple. He was very humble, mostly because of that fact. If Joe Jackson is a bum, then Rose is Satan himself.calling Jackson a bum is way off base. He was uneducated and simple. He was very humble, mostly because of that fact. If Joe Jackson is a bum, then Rose is Satan himself.
FuriousGiorge
The most damning evidence against Jackson has always been his testimony:
Q. Did anybody pay you any money to help throw that series in favor of Cincinnati?
A. They did.
Q. How much did they pay?
A. They promised me $20,000, and paid me five.
Q. Who paid you the $5,000?
A. Lefty Williams brought it in my room and threw it down.
Q. What did you say to Williams when he threw down the $5,000?
A. I asked him what the hell had come off here.
Q. What did he say?
A. He said Gandil said we all got a screw through Abe Attell. Gandil said that we got double crossed through Abe Attell, he got the money and refused to turn it over to him. I don�t think Gandil was crossed as much as he crossed us.
Eddie Cicotte and Chick Gandil both named Jackson as a co-conspirator. Gandil's implication of Jackson didn't come until he finally told his story, 30 years later, in other words way past the time when he needed to lie to try to save himself.
Joe Jackson was a bum. I don't care if he was illiterate, I don't care if he helped old ladies cross the street and solved crimes on his days off. He knowingly accepted money which was handed to him for fixing the World Series. He's been portrayed as this innocent bumpkin who through his own ignorance got caught up in the scandal. BS. He could count to 5000, and he could make moral decisions, and he decided not to. So screw him.
July 23, 2004 at 12:17AM View BBCode
Joe drove in zero runs in the first 5 games of the series. By itself that means nothing, as it can easily be explained by his teammates not being on base. He also scored exactly 1 run in those games. This is not evidence that Joe fixed the series, but it's also a pretty decent refutation of those who claim Jackson had a great series. Someone who was trying to fix a series would, very clearly, try a lot less if it would lead to runs being scored for their team.The most damning evidence against Jackson has always been his testimony:
Q. Did anybody pay you any money to help throw that series in favor of Cincinnati?
A. They did.
Q. How much did they pay?
A. They promised me $20,000, and paid me five.
Q. Who paid you the $5,000?
A. Lefty Williams brought it in my room and threw it down.
Q. What did you say to Williams when he threw down the $5,000?
A. I asked him what the hell had come off here.
Q. What did he say?
A. He said Gandil said we all got a screw through Abe Attell. Gandil said that we got double crossed through Abe Attell, he got the money and refused to turn it over to him. I don�t think Gandil was crossed as much as he crossed us.
Eddie Cicotte and Chick Gandil both named Jackson as a co-conspirator. Gandil's implication of Jackson didn't come until he finally told his story, 30 years later, in other words way past the time when he needed to lie to try to save himself.
Joe Jackson was a bum. I don't care if he was illiterate, I don't care if he helped old ladies cross the street and solved crimes on his days off. He knowingly accepted money which was handed to him for fixing the World Series. He's been portrayed as this innocent bumpkin who through his own ignorance got caught up in the scandal. BS. He could count to 5000, and he could make moral decisions, and he decided not to. So screw him.
happy
July 23, 2004 at 04:48AM View BBCode
yay, pete rose shouldnt get to go to the hall because that was the rule. he fucked up, he pays the price.
Unclescam777
July 23, 2004 at 12:36PM View BBCode
Sounds like Furious is jealous. Seriously dude, you think anybody with talent is a bum, or they suck. Stop barking at the world and open up your perspectives. Just because your life is worthless doesn't mean that you have to hate everybody who has it better than youPages: 1 2