No HOF For Pete

[nolemmings]

No, Todd, what he deserves is to be punished or not on the basis of the evidence, not speculation about what he might or might not have done

I submit that one of the reasons baseball has such a hard and fast rule--strict liability if you will-- is because it is difficult to prove with exactness a man's motives when participating in a game. Did the guy really go 0-5 and strand 7 baserunners against that tomato can he normally owns because of an off day or because he bet on the game? Did the manager go against all baseball sense to win this one game (e.g. closer goes 3 innings for first time) at the possible expense of the next because this game means more in the overall picture or because he has $ riding on it? The public's perception that the game might be crooked cannot be allowed, so the rule is harsh, but it is clear, and virtually never violated.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I submit that one of the reasons baseball has such a hard and fast rule--strict liability if you will-- is because it is difficult to prove with exactness a man's motives when participating in a game. Did the guy really go 0-5 and strand 7 baserunners against that tomato can he normally owns because of an off day or because he bet on the game? Did the manager go against all baseball sense to win this one game (e.g. closer goes 3 innings for first time) at the possible expense of the next because this game means more in the overall picture or because he has $ riding on it? The public's perception that the game might be crooked cannot be allowed, so the rule is harsh, but it is clear, and virtually never violated.

We aren't debating whether he should have been punished. He should have, and he was -- for 25 years. When ARod admits to multiple PED violations and is back at third base after a year, it seems to me Rose's sentence is grossly disproportionate. Nobody HAS to vote for him if he's eligible, by the way. If people feel like you do, he won't get in.

[packs]

I think there's a big difference between PED use and betting on games. PED use doesn't necessarily create a pre-determined outcome. If you're the manager of a baseball team and you're betting on your own games, then an argument can be made that the game you're betting on is a sham. If you bet on your team to lose, you're going to try to lose. And like I said, there's no reason to believe Rose when he says he never bet on the Reds to lose. He is a compulsive liar.

[nolemmings]

Did you not see that he continues to engage in the very conduct that is prohibited under MLB rules? No contrition, no rehabilitation, repeated lying and disparagement of others all those years while he steadfastly denied his guilt and impugned his accusers --even a dead man. Why in the hell should this guy be allowed back in the game? What on Earth makes you think he would not continue to bet on baseball?

If you're so bothered by his absence from the HOF, make your pitch there. It is not disingenuous to have that body change its stance on who it deems eligible; in fact, I would argue that it is easier and invokes less potential heartburn for the game if that body were to change rather than to expect MLB to loosen its rules or allow this continuing fool to have any kind of official or acknowledged position in the game.

EDITED TO ADD: Peter, I just saw an earlier post where you say who cares if he still bets on baseball? That is a total non-starter, not just with me but I would guess nearly everyone. Dear MLB, change your rules that prohibit your members from betting on baseball? Why? I dunno. Ask Peter Spaeth.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Did you not see that he continues to engage in the very conduct that is prohibited under MLB rules? No contrition, no rehabilitation, repeated lying and disparagement of others all those years while he steadfastly denied his guilt and impugned his accusers --even a dead man. Why in the hell should this guy be allowed back in the game? What on Earth makes you think he would not continue to bet on baseball?

If you're so bothered by his absence from the HOF, make your pitch there. It is not disingenuous to have that body change its stance on who it deems eligible; in fact, I would argue that it is easier and invokes less potential heartburn for the game if that body were to change rather than to expect MLB to loosen its rules or allow this continuing fool to have any kind of official or acknowledged position in the game.

EDITED TO ADD: Peter, I just saw an earlier post where you say who cares if he still bets on baseball? That is a total non-starter, not just with me but I would guess nearly everyone. Dear MLB, change your rules that prohibit your members from betting on baseball? Why? I dunno. Ask Peter Spaeth.

There is, I suspect, zero chance the HOF would say someone who is banned for life from MLB is still eligible for induction.

And I don't care if he bets on baseball now. What possible difference can it make if Pete Rose bets on a game? By the way Gaylord Perry probably broke the rules every time he pitched, were you against his induction? And answer me please about ARod.

[nolemmings]

I have no idea what you're asking about Arod, and I don't really care. Arod was accused of engaging in conduct prohibited under a collectively bargained labor agreement. The process and potential punishments were spelled out and agreed to by labor and management. He went through the process, and even challenged it in court. A decision was made that comported with the law and the CBA. Issue over.

If Pete Rose wants to challenge his treatment in court, I say go for it big fella. Similarly, if he wants to have the players bargain next time around for the right to bet on baseball or for certain specified lesser punishments if they are found to have bet, or even for any kind of retroactive relief for Pete himself, he can focus his energies there. Good luck with that.

[Peter_Spaeth]

You're missing the forest for the trees, and framing the issue in a misleading way. Obviously the collective bargaining agreement has nothing to do with Rose's situation from a literal point of view. And nobody is suggesting Rose has any recourse, legal or otherwise. Straw man argument. My point is simply one of what I view as fundamental fairness, and I believe the ARod case for all its differences suggests, at the level of the forest (not the trees), that Rose has been punished enough for what he did.

Now, answer my question, do you believe Gaylord Perry should be in the Hall of Fame, or not, and why?

[nolemmings]

No it is not strawman argument. No I will not keep answering your questions about other players. Call me fundamentally unfair. I could not care less.