completely off topic but...
-
The way I see it, the Hall of Fame is not only to honour the great players and their accomplishments, but also to chronicle the history of the game. There are numerous artifacts throughout the Hall that detail that history and Pete Rose’s history within the game should be a part of that.
The Hall doesn’t need to just celebrate the good things Rose contributed. The whole story should be told, including the allegations, investigation, suspension and ban. It is undeniably a huge part of baseball history and it’s ridiculous to not have the entire story commemorated in the Hall.
Despite the ban of 8 players, the Black Sox history is included in an exhibit with artifacts and records consisting primarily of American League President Ban Johnson’s correspondence but also include trial documents and exhibits, player interviews and depositions, the reports of private investigators hired by the League, and photocopies of period newspaper accounts of the scandal. Pete Rose’s career should be detailed in the same manner.
Pete Rose broke the cardinal rule of baseball and thus pays the price for that infraction. The history of the game, the Hall of Fame, and the fans for that matter, shouldn’t be deprived, however. There’s no reason to honour Pete Rose with the same fanfare and celebration as normal inductees receive, but his story should 100% be on display throughout the Hall.
-
Yes, as should other guys like Bonds. The hall will forever be incomplete without the games all time hits leader and home run hitter.
And for those that say Bonds shouldn't get in, there are quite a number of juicers, drug takers and alcoholics in the hall.
-
@Scarletgospel said in completely off topic but...:
Yes, as should other guys like Bonds. The hall will forever be incomplete without the games all time hits leader and home run hitter.
And for those that say Bonds shouldn't get in, there are quite a number of juicers, drug takers and alcoholics in the hall.
And bonds was already a HoF candidate before he even started juicing.
-
@DriveByTrucker17 said in completely off topic but...:
@Scarletgospel said in completely off topic but...:
Yes, as should other guys like Bonds. The hall will forever be incomplete without the games all time hits leader and home run hitter.
And for those that say Bonds shouldn't get in, there are quite a number of juicers, drug takers and alcoholics in the hall.
And bonds was already a HoF candidate before he even started juicing.
And there is that, too.
-
@SchnauzerFace said in completely off topic but...:
No. Every clubhouse in Rose’s era had signs that very clearly and explicitly said gambling = automatic lifetime ban. No wiggle room. So there was no surprise when he got his punishment. It was always very clear what would happen if he got caught.
Anyone who is a parent knows that if you hand down a punishment, you absolutely have to see it through. If you don’t, your kiddos will know your punishments are just idle, empty threats and you’re screwed. MLB had a clear policy with a punishment attached. Rose willingly broke that policy and he needs to accept the punishment that he knew would go with it. For MLB to change their minds now would be a disaster for the next time they need to hand down harsh disciplinary measures.
Also — its really important that it was Rose, tbh. One of the best hitters of all time isn’t in the HoF because he broke this rule. It’s part of the baseball collective consciousness. If this was just some bench warmer, we all would have forgotten, and it’s possible gambling would be even more common (I’m not foolish enough to think it’s been 100% eliminated, but I’m sure it’s not rampant). But (as far as I know) there hasn’t been a lifetime ban for gambling since he got his punishment. I think that says a lot. Other players take it seriously. And, again as far as I know, no one has gotten a lifetime ban for gambling (or cheating) since Joe Jackson and the other 7 Black Sox. That punishment also kept at least one legend out of the HoF, and that served as a very sobering warning for the next 60 years.
Sorry, Pete. You knew exactly what would happen and you did it anyway. If, for example, Cora ended up with a lifetime ban from the Astros scandal (which he probably should have imo), I can see where there is at least some grey area. You could question if the punishment was too harsh or maybe meted out unfairly. But this is entirely different. Rose gambled on his future and lost. Cry me a river, Pete. You got what you had coming.
I think your first sentence is the most viable argument against him. It was literally written everywhere he went as a professional.
Now, the steroid thing is a different story. There are definitely guys in the hall that used steroids in that era. So, only punish the ones that would have definitely gotten in anyway? That seems off. Everyone in town knew that guys were using steroids. And everyone in and out of the clubhouse looked the other way.
I’m generally a fan of keeping guys out. But I see it both ways. If Pete rose got put in, I’d watch his induction speech. If Barry bonds got put in, it wouldn’t bother me.
-
Nope and nope to the steroid users. Anybody stealing signs is fine.
-
@Untchable704 said in completely off topic but...:
Nope and nope to the steroid users. Anybody stealing signs is fine.
Knowing what pitch is coming gives a much bigger advantage than steroids.
-
@Some_Schmuck_22 said in completely off topic but...:
He's in the WWE HoF and that is all he deserves for the time being.
I think I even may be in the WWE HoF. I did go to a few events in the early 2000's. I think that qualifies.
-
My understanding is he gambled while managing, not while playing. Pete Rose is not a hall of fame calibre manager, he is a hall of fame calibre player.
I understand the MLB ban as they have clearly defined rules, but in my opinion Cooperstown upholds that ruling in regards to hall of fame induction wrongfully. The MLB doesn't own nor does it have any official power in regards to the hall of fame. They are free to induct whomever they deem fit.
I'd like to see Pete Rose in the hall of fame one day. It would be nice if he could see it too. The man lives for baseball, and is arguably one of the greatest players of all time. He deserves his name enshrined with the other greats of the game.
-
@Untchable704 said in completely off topic but...:
Nope and nope to the steroid users. Anybody stealing signs is fine.
There are already players in that are rumored to have used PEDs. Bagwell and Pudge being the most prominent.
-
@Scarletgospel said in completely off topic but...:
Yes, as should other guys like Bonds. The hall will forever be incomplete without the games all time hits leader and home run hitter.
And for those that say Bonds shouldn't get in, there are quite a number of juicers, drug takers and alcoholics in the hall.
Hall of Fame inductance is decided by the BBWAA (Baseball Writer’s Association of America). MVP voting is also conducted by the BBWAA.
In 2003, Barry Bonds testified in front of grand jury regarding his involvement with BALCO and PED usage. The BBWAA was aware of this as they wrote extensively about the situation and investigated it thoroughly.
In 2004, Barry Bonds was voted NL MVP.......by the BBWAA......with a 91% vote share.
In summation, the BBWAA knew in 2003 that Barry Bonds was a PED user, with that knowledge in mind, determined he was the MVP in 2004, and then decided to punish him a few years later when determining if he should be inducted into the Hall of Fame.
The BBWAA celebrated and rewarded Bonds fully knowing that he was a PED user, but then acted outraged and disgusted about it a few years later. The hypocrisy of the BBWAA is unfathomable and the fact Bonds isn’t in the Hall is ridiculous.
Cheating in baseball has been around since the first inning ever played. The history of doping is a long one and there are plenty of Hall of Famers already attached to amphetamine use, or whatever advantages were available at the time. The fact remains that the advantages available to Barry Bonds were better than those available to players 30 years prior, and his skill level was so high that his enhanced performance was unlike anything we’d ever seen.
As with Rose, put Bonds in. Tell the whole story. It’s fascinating. People act as if it’s a stain on the Hall to include these players and their stories. Ignoring history in an establishment designed to celebrate and preserve history is ridiculous. It’s especially ridiculous when you consider that it’s the writers that are leaving Bond out. They certainly wrote about him and celebrated him an awful lot that it seems unfathomable that they don’t think his history warrants inclusion.
-
@Untchable704 said in completely off topic but...:
Nope and nope to the steroid users. Anybody stealing signs is fine.
For what it’s worth, multiple current and former MLB pitchers have gone on record saying they’d rather face a PED user than a batter who knows what pitch is coming.
-
@EvylShaun said in completely off topic but...:
My understanding is he gambled while managing, not while playing. Pete Rose is not a hall of fame calibre manager, he is a hall of fame calibre player.
I feel like that’s kinda splitting hairs. Gambling is gambling. He was putting on an MLB uniform and accepting MLB paychecks. Also, I think he was a player-manager for a while, too, so it’s possible he was still playing.
Either way, there has never been any speculation that he bet against his own team, so I don’t really see the difference. Everyone knew that gambling meant a lifetime ban — and that went for managers as well as players.
-
@DriveByTrucker17 said in completely off topic but...:
@Untchable704 said in completely off topic but...:
Nope and nope to the steroid users. Anybody stealing signs is fine.
Knowing what pitch is coming gives a much bigger advantage than steroids.
The stats say that isn’t true eh.
-
@ilvmyjeep said in completely off topic but...:
@Untchable704 said in completely off topic but...:
Nope and nope to the steroid users. Anybody stealing signs is fine.
For what it’s worth, multiple current and former MLB pitchers have gone on record saying they’d rather face a PED user than a batter who knows what pitch is coming.
Easy for these guys to say that now. But nobody hitting 70 homeruns and they’re almost all stealing signs now.
-
great post. @ilvmyjeep
-
@Untchable704 said in completely off topic but...:
@ilvmyjeep said in completely off topic but...:
@Untchable704 said in completely off topic but...:
Nope and nope to the steroid users. Anybody stealing signs is fine.
For what it’s worth, multiple current and former MLB pitchers have gone on record saying they’d rather face a PED user than a batter who knows what pitch is coming.
Easy for these guys to say that now. But nobody hitting 70 homeruns and they’re almost all stealing signs now.
I think the difference is because it’s a generic question not pertaining to a specific player. It’s not asking if you’d rather face the Astros knowing what’s coming or Barry Bonds on PEDs. It’s asking if you’d rather face the Astros knowing what’s coming or the Astros on PEDs. Or face Barry Bonds knowing what’s coming or Barry Bonds on PEDs.
You can fool a guy on PEDs with varying speed/location or flat out beat him with your pitch easier than you can fool someone that knows what is coming.
-
@Untchable704 said in completely off topic but...:
@DriveByTrucker17 said in completely off topic but...:
@Untchable704 said in completely off topic but...:
Nope and nope to the steroid users. Anybody stealing signs is fine.
Knowing what pitch is coming gives a much bigger advantage than steroids.
The stats say that isn’t true eh.
Bonds, arod, McGwire, etc., were all better than any astros player before using roids. You still have to be good enough to hit when using roids. If I know a fastball is guaranteed to be coming, it gets much easier. MLB players have said this as well.
-
@DriveByTrucker17 said in completely off topic but...:
@Untchable704 said in completely off topic but...:
@DriveByTrucker17 said in completely off topic but...:
@Untchable704 said in completely off topic but...:
Nope and nope to the steroid users. Anybody stealing signs is fine.
Knowing what pitch is coming gives a much bigger advantage than steroids.
The stats say that isn’t true eh.
Bonds, arod, McGwire, etc., were all better than any astros player before using roids. You still have to be good enough to hit when using roids. If I know a fastball is guaranteed to be coming, it gets much easier. MLB players have said this as well.
It’s called recency bias. Nothing more.
-
@Untchable704 said in completely off topic but...:
@DriveByTrucker17 said in completely off topic but...:
@Untchable704 said in completely off topic but...:
@DriveByTrucker17 said in completely off topic but...:
@Untchable704 said in completely off topic but...:
Nope and nope to the steroid users. Anybody stealing signs is fine.
Knowing what pitch is coming gives a much bigger advantage than steroids.
The stats say that isn’t true eh.
Bonds, arod, McGwire, etc., were all better than any astros player before using roids. You still have to be good enough to hit when using roids. If I know a fastball is guaranteed to be coming, it gets much easier. MLB players have said this as well.
It’s called recency bias. Nothing more.
It’s not recency bias. It’s a situational difference. Sign stealing happens in situations throughout the season. Sometimes signs can be stolen, sometimes they can’t. PEDs usage is done throughout the whole season.
Think of it in a vacuum. If a player knew what pitch was coming every single time, in every single at bat, for the whole season, that player would out perform the same version of that player on PEDs without the knowledge of what pitch was coming.
Look at the results the Astros posted when Glasnow was tipping his pitches. Those results were far greater than the results of a PED user. The difference is that the effects only lasted a few innings because Glasnow was pulled. As soon as the Astros didn’t know what pitch was coming, they didn’t have the same success. PED benefits wouldn’t stop because of a pitching change.
