|
#51
|
||||
|
||||
Rose, I don't care one way or the other about. Bonds and Clemens, I used to be in the 'keep the juicers out' camp, but when Bud Selig went in, and Torre and Cox and other executives who profited off the juicers and/or looked the other way while it was going on, I thought it was hypocritical to let them in but keep the players out.
__________________
Signed 1953 Topps set: 264/274 (96.35 %) |
#52
|
||||
|
||||
All you guys saying 'No' to Rose are bonkers. How is this even remotely a point of contention? It'd be one thing if he was betting against his team to win when he was the manager, but he didn't. All the records that were recovered during the investigation corroborate his account that he was betting on the Reds TO WIN. Records on over 50 games where he bet were found. Every single one of them was on the Reds to win. If you think that doesn't make a difference, you're wrong. He wasn't throwing games. He was competing. Boxers do it all the time. They bet on themselves to win. There is absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever with someone betting on themselves or their team to win a competition. NOTHING WHATSOEVER.
Throwing a game is different. But Rose never did that.
__________________
If it's not perfectly centered, I probably don't want it. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Wow...
Set emotions and kid favorites aside... READ The Fix Is In, by Daniel Ginsburg. All 3 had HOF careers, but it is the "other stuff" that does them in. Clemens - NO Bonds - Maybe, one day Rose - As a guest, any time he buys a ticket for admission, on a day by day basis, I think they're open 363 days a year; but absolutely no induction. Rose was a tremendous competitor, awesome ballplayer. Clemens was a dominant pitcher. Bonds had longevity as a player, and the balls he hit had their own longevity as they sailed outa the ball parks. Read Ginsburg's book. The league's evolved away from being a drinking and gambling sport that gentile folk would avoid... it wasn't America's game back then. Educate yourselves. |
#54
|
||||
|
||||
I’d put them all
In eventually. If you think they need to be punished and only get in once they pass I understand such thinking. But all three are all time great players and should be in the hall.o see no rational reason to keep out bonds and Clemens. Why allow lesser cheats in the hall but not those who performed the best? So it’s ok to juice if you aren’t already an all time great? What an asinine position. Last edited by glynparson; 06-21-2023 at 07:18 AM. |
#55
|
||||
|
||||
No for Rose, he broke the cardinal rule of baseball, he knew the rule and the punishment and bet anyway. Rose lied about it for years, then only admitted guilt to sell books.
I find it harder to exclude Clemens and Bonds, there are suspected steroid users in the HOF (Pudge, Bagwell, Piazza) but now that a known steroid user is in (David Ortiz) how do they justify keeping others out? |
#56
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I'm a big Rose fan because I don't think the 1980 Phillies win the World Series without him, but I go back and forth on if he should be in the HoF because of the betting on his own team since it definitely has the potential to impact the integrity of games even if he never did bet on the Reds to lose. Usually I end up with the compromise that he should have been allowed on the HoF ballot to at least get voted on but shouldn't have been allowed to be hired by a MLB team. When he was first banned, it was still expected that he would be on the HoF ballot, but that was changed before the first time he would have appeared on it to prevent banned players from also being on the ballot. |
#58
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#59
|
||||
|
||||
No on Rose (my #1 team is the Reds).
Yes on Bonds and Clemens. Even among Reds fans, Rose is very polarizing. Many Reds fans very openly state that Rose is a POS human being. He had sex with a minor. Who cares about betting beyond that. As for Bonds and Clemens, the HOF needs to create a wing for 80s/90s/00s players and put them all together. Even bad history is worthy of having its story told. The HOF needs to be very open about player's drug use, BALCO investigation, Jose Canseco's book, and the role of ownership promoting drug use for greed. In addition: yes on Palmeiro, ARod, Sosa, McGwire, and the list goes on. Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk
__________________
Barry Larkin, Joey Votto, Tris Speaker, 1930-45 Cincinnati Reds, T206 Cincinnati Successful deals with: Banksfan14, Brianp-beme, Bumpus Jones, Dacubfan (x5), Dstrawberryfan39, Ed_Hutchinson, Fballguy, fusorcruiser (x2), GoCalBears, Gorditadog, Luke, MikeKam, Moosedog, Nineunder71, Powdered H20, PSU, Ronniehatesjazz, Roarfrom34, Sebie43, Seven, and Wondo |
#60
|
||||
|
||||
Rose should be in the HOF for what he did as a player, period!
__________________
Successful NET54 transactions: robw1959, Tyruscobb |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
No to Rose forever. He's my 2nd all time favorite but he broke the only rule posted in every clubhouse. How close was baseball to death in 1919? Some say very. So Landis what he did and made it very clear. No gambling in or around the clubhouse. He knowingly broke that rule and not banning him from baseball including the HOF invites corruption back into the game.
As to Bonds et al, I think its just a shame. But, each individual and his individual case could be considered by the voting press. Bonds was gonna hit HOF numbers without the joice. Sosa, not. I would think that Clemens might be the first to bust through as he has always laid low on the subject and unlike Palmiero and even McGwyre, said very little. I wish that like Petit he admitted it. |
#62
|
||||
|
||||
If Rose retired as a player from baseball, was elected to the HOF, then later managed and did what he did, he would still be in the HOF.
Rose 100% HOFer 👍🏻⚾️
__________________
Successful NET54 transactions: robw1959, Tyruscobb |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
He knew what he was getting into. And the penalty for it. (d) GAMBLING. (1) Any player, umpire, or Club or League official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform, shall be declared ineligible for one year. (2) Any player, umpire, or Club or League official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform, shall be declared permanently ineligible. (3) Any player, umpire, or Club or League official or employee who places bets with illegal book makers, or agents for illegal book makers, shall be subject to such penalty as the Commissioner deems appropriate in light of the facts and circumstances of the conduct. Any player, umpire, or Club or League official or employee who operates or works for an illegal bookmaking business shall be subject to a minimum of a one-year suspension by the Commissioner. For purposes of this provision, an illegal bookmaker is an individual who accepts, places or handles wagers on sporting events from members of the public as part of a gaming operation that is unlawful in the jurisdiction in which the bets are accepted. |
#64
|
||||
|
||||
Introducing new pharmaceuticals
HEDs need to be marketed to the BWAA members qualified to vote.
What are HEDs you ask? Halloffame Enhancing Drugs. I don't waste my time arguing about who should or shouldn't be in the Hall. This forum seems to love it. I also don't give a damn about the Oscars, the Tonys, the Emmys or the Espys. Self-aggrandizing awards mean nothing to me. After I'm gone, if someone wants to build a monument with my likeness cast in stone, so be it. And I also won't care if the monument is vandalized and destroyed by the "activists du jour" at some point in the future.
__________________
FRANK:BUR:KETT - RAUCOUS SPORTS CARD FORUM MEMBER AND MONSTER NUMBER FATHER. GOOD FOR THE HOBBY AND THE FORUM WITH A VAULT IN AN UNDISCLOSED LOCATION FILLED WITH NON-FUNGIBLES 274/1000 Monster Number Nearly*1000* successful B/S/T transactions completed from 2012 to 2024. Over 680 sales with satisfied Board members served. If you want fries with your order, just speak up. Thank you all. Now nearly PQ. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
All arguments back and forth aside...
With a team in Vegas, they may as well reinstate Rose and Jackson and put them in together. It will be a good sign that nothing matters to MLB quite so much as money. And once you abandon the whole "wrecking the reputation of the game" thing, I suppose steroids don't matter either as long as the jacked up players bring in enough cash. To me a lot of the early tests were very iffy, the lab that did them was questionable, and MLB wouldn't release any info about what a test was positive for even to the players. Even with much higher standards, Baseball was removed from the Olympics because they didn't meet WADA standards. By those standards I doubt there would be more than a few players eligible. And probably almost none since the late 1960's |
#66
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Of course the HOF could discard it's rule about players on the list not being eligible for induction and leave it to the voters, but that would probably upset their relationship with MLB.
__________________
Working Sets: Baseball- T206 SLers - Virginia League (-1) 1952 Topps - low numbers (-1) 1954 Bowman (-3) 1964 Topps Giants auto'd (-2) Last edited by Bigdaddy; 06-21-2023 at 01:19 PM. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
I completely understand why some people think he should be forgiven, but I cannot fathom how some people do not understand (or pretend not to understand to stir the pot) why Rose is banned. It was the number 1 rule in baseball, the stakes were known, he obviously and provably broke that rule. Duh.
|
#68
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Peter Ueberroth later revoked their suspensions in 1984, soon after taking on the commissioner position.
__________________
Working Sets: Baseball- T206 SLers - Virginia League (-1) 1952 Topps - low numbers (-1) 1954 Bowman (-3) 1964 Topps Giants auto'd (-2) |
#69
|
||||
|
||||
Based on numbers? Yes, the numbers scream YES!
Now trying to get people to admit them based on character is a different question. All three are LIARS - yes, we're probably all guilty of lying at some point in time but what these guys lied about had to do with BASEBALL. I'm not going to get sanctimonious here, but "say it aint so" Pete, Barry and Roger. What I liked about another player with monster numbers is he didn't lie and fessed up, and still not in the HOF. Props to McGwire for being honest. Now Palmeiro is another story - he flat out lied under oath. What a clown. He put up some seriously great offensive numbers but flat out lying to congress and the people was offensive in the wrong way. That said, I say let all three in and then open it up to all the other PED abusers (ok Rose aint one of those guys) and enshrine them after they've gone. At least they'll know they're going in, they just won't see the induction ceremony. I'd have been a hanging judge for sure back in the day... Edited to add - Induct Rose now before he's dead because for some reason or other I bet he didn't bet against his teams - that would just seem to go against his grain.
__________________
fr3d c0wl3s - always looking for OJs and other 19th century stuff. PM or email me if you have something cool you're looking to find a new home for. Last edited by Fred; 06-21-2023 at 01:52 PM. |
#70
|
||||
|
||||
Gaylord Perry and David Ortiz are in. Clemens and Bonds should be.
Rose is an easy no. He broke the cardinal rule. |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
What's odd is that the hobby conveniently also forgets Rose selling multiple bats related to the same milestone hit on the way to the record. Not the major ones, but stuff like two people with bats from like hit 4187.
|
#74
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
It is all the life and entertainment of the sports. But back to basics. To many players did it and we will never truly know how many did both pitchers and players and some guilty are going to sneak in and some innocent are going to miss out. And sadly some clean ones get over shadowed and missed there time to shine
__________________
Thanks all Jeff Kuhr https://www.flickr.com/photos/144250058@N05/ Looking for 1920 Heading Home Ruth Cards 1917-20 Felix Mendelssohn Babe Ruth 1921 Frederick Foto Ruth Joe Jackson Cards 1916 Advertising Backs 1910 Old Mills Joe Jackson 1914 Boston Garter Joe Jackson 1915 Cracker Jack Joe Jackson 1911 Pinkerton Joe Jackson Shoeless Joe Jackson Autograph |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Heck no on Rose, maybe on Bonds, yes on Clemens.
|
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Ben, I'm curious why you feel differently about Bonds and Clemens. It seems like most people are either for or against both. Their BBWAA vote totals were within a few votes of each other every year.
|
#77
|
|||
|
|||
I’m not aware of any evidence supporting the allegation, and I believe the attorney accusing Rose had to settle after Rose sued him for defamation as a result.
|
#78
|
||||
|
||||
Of all the roid users, I don’t get why so many people are so pro Bonds to go in the HOF. His roid use, which by the way, positive test or not, is obvious, got him the all time regular season and all time HR records.
Yes, most agree he didn’t need roids to accomplish a HOF career, but those HR records wouldn’t be his without roids. I would think most would be pissed about that; especially the all time HR record. No matter what, My stand will always be, if you let one in, you let all in. It was an enjoyable era, which is a part of baseball history.
__________________
Successful NET54 transactions: robw1959, Tyruscobb |
#79
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
If it's not perfectly centered, I probably don't want it. |
#80
|
||||
|
||||
If he had sex with a minor (assuming he wasn't just a teenager too, like an 18 year old with a 16 year old), then that's something different. Ya, maybe ban him for that if true, but the betting on one's team to win? That's ridiculous. Anyone who actually cares about that isn't thinking it through.
__________________
If it's not perfectly centered, I probably don't want it. |
#81
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Not being allowed to bet on yourself to win is a stupid rule.
__________________
If it's not perfectly centered, I probably don't want it. |
#82
|
||||
|
||||
If you bet on your team to win one game but do not bet on your team to win a different game, you have an incentive, if not a plan, to try harder to win your bet. As manager, he had sole discretion how to utilize his assets to accomplish his goals.
|
#83
|
||||
|
||||
It's ridiculous that anyone thinks Rose would bet against his team. What bookie on the planet is going to accept a wager on the Reds to lose from the manager of the Reds? If you believe this happened, you're an idiot.
__________________
If it's not perfectly centered, I probably don't want it. |
#84
|
||||
|
||||
You just don't get it.
|
#85
|
||||
|
||||
Bookies care about one thing. MONEY. You want to bet on something.. no problem to them..
__________________
*********** USAF Veteran 84-94 *********** |
#86
|
||||
|
||||
You're talking about trying to win games though. This is how all good managers manage games. If you're down 9-0, you don't put your closer on the mound that night. Pete Rose tried to win every game he bet on. It does not logically follow that he tried to lose the games which he did not bet on. There is no evidence whatsoever that he threw games. None.
__________________
If it's not perfectly centered, I probably don't want it. |
#87
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#88
|
||||
|
||||
No, YOU don't get it. Not one person in here has provided one valid reason for why betting on oneself or one's team to win a game/match might compromise the integrity of that game/match in any way. And no, saying, "but what about the next game that he didn't bet on?" is not an answer.
Quote:
If you want to claim that he had some other secret channel through which he bet against the Reds, or had someone bet for him, then that is a separate claim. But there is zero evidence of that claim, and it would be on you to prove that it happened.
__________________
If it's not perfectly centered, I probably don't want it. |
#89
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
You're saying nothing. Literally nothing.
__________________
If it's not perfectly centered, I probably don't want it. |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Any everybody else is aware of the incredibly obvious - that Rose broke rule #1 which was well-defined and known to him. Whether he should be excused and forgiven for it after so long is a reasonable debate, but your love of gambling is irrelevant.
|
#91
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
All of us have pulled up to an intersection that has a sign which reads, "No turn on red" when wanting to make a right turn at a red light. When there is traffic, most of us likely obey the sign. But if it's the middle of the night with no other cars in sight, only an idiot sits there and waits for the light to turn green so he can make his right turn. Pete Rose was sitting at a red light in the middle of the night with no traffic, wanting to make a right turn.
__________________
If it's not perfectly centered, I probably don't want it. Last edited by Snowman; 06-21-2023 at 06:04 PM. |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
As an attorney, there are lots of rules and laws on the books that I don't agree with. But, I don't get to decide whether a given law/rule is stupid or not, nor do I get to decide when its okay to violate it. If I violate a law/rule that I think is stupid and get caught, the penalty is the same as if I had violated a "good" law. That's just the way it is.
This seems pretty simple to me. Rose knew what the rule was. He chose to violate it. He got caught and got the prescribed penalty for that violation. He viewed himself as above the rules and, as a result, he screwed himself. That's the way it works, regardless of what his apologists might wish. End of story. |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
That said, my only rigid opinion on the matter is that Rose should be kept out of the Hall solely because of what he did to Ray Fosse in the 1970 All Star Game. |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/sports....172143720.html |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#98
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Looking for 1930 baguer chocolates Al Lopez 1880-1930s Detroit Tigers 1907 Wolverine News Postcards 1907 Dietsche Detroit Tigers Postcards 1907-1909 H.M. Taylor Detroit Tigers Postcards 1908 Brush Detroit Postcards 1908 Detroit Free Press Postcards 1909 Topping & Co Postcards 1935 M120 Detroit Free Press. 16/18 complete. Need Mickey Cochrane and Tommy Bridges. |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
I think the concept of betting for your team becomes a problem due to a few key facts:
1) It’s a long season. A good manager is making moves with the full season in mind, rather than just that game. Because the goal is to win more games in total, not just the ones that you bet on. 2) Moves a manager makes in one game impact the next game. And moves made in previous games impact today’s game. World Series game 7 is the exception, of course, because there’s no tomorrow, and you throw everything you’ve got in an attempt to win. Plus winning game 7 is worth other potential risks that a player might run, like getting injured, or aggravating an existing injury by playing whilst less than 100%. 3) We’re assuming he only bet on some games, and not on all of them. If he bet on all of them, or even almost all of them, then point #1 above is likely no longer relevant. Since we’re having fun here, let’s dig into an example. Let’s say that Petey bets on the game 5 days from now. Maybe the manager has today’s starter skip his start to rest him up a little more. Or maybe gives him an early hook to avoid running up his pitch count and keep him fresh. Then in the 2-3 games before the game in question, the manager selectively uses his relievers, deploying them in a fashion to make sure that the best relievers are fresh for the important game, rather than deploying them to win the most games overall. For added effect, maybe the manager strategically rests some position players to keep them fresh for the important game, and lets the scrubs play more in the other games. You could probably go on here, maybe choosing to keep the other team from seeing some plays like a hit and run or a straight steal or even a bunt against the shift as a means of making it a more effective sneak attack when the important game comes along. Maybe the manager will choose to use a pinch hitter in an odd spot, just to get the hitter an extra look at a reliever that he might face in a critical spot in that future game. Naturally, if you let your mind wander for long enough, it’s not hard to imagine a long list of moves that a manager could make to improve the odds of winning one game at the expense of other games. Even in relatively mild situations, it’s easy to imagine that 1-2 games around the game in question could be impacted. And in really extreme cases, it could multiply quickly, particularly if a manager ends up pushing a player and he gets hurt, thereby reducing the team’s chances while that player is out. So particularly for a manager, unless they’re betting on every game, there’s the real possibility that managing like it’s WS game 7 for the games you bet on will adversely impact other games for your team.
__________________
Trying to wrap up my master mays set, with just a few left: 1968 American Oil left side 1971 Bazooka numbered complete panel |
#100
|
||||
|
||||
From the Philadelphia Inquirer article:
"The biggest reason for the uproar over Rose’s return to the field in Philadelphia had less to do with his ban for gambling and more to do with the accusations of statutory rape that surfaced as part of testimony in federal court in 2017. That testimony only surfaced because Rose had filed a defamation suit against Dowd in 2015 following an interview on WCHE-AM (1520) in West Chester in which Dowd said a former associate of Rose told him that Rose had sex with underage girls “ages 12 to 14.” “Michael Bertolini, you know, told us that he not only ran bets but he ran young girls for him down at spring training, ages 12 to 14,” Dowd said. “Isn’t that lovely? So that’s statutory rape every time you do that.” Rose denied the allegations, adding that Dowd’s remarks were “entirely false in every respect.” But as part of the defamation suit that followed against Dowd, new testimony suggested that Rose had a years-long relationship with an underage girl in Cincinnati during the 1970s after first meeting in 1973. “Sometime after that, Pete Rose and I began meeting at a house in Cincinnati,” the woman said in a statement first obtained by ESPN. “It was at that house where, before my 16th birthday, Pete Rose began a sexual relationship with me. This sexual relationship lasted for several years. Pete Rose also met me in locations outside of Ohio where we had sex.” Rose admitted in court filings that he had sex with the woman in question but believed that she was 16 at the time their relationship began “sometime in 1975,” when Rose was 34 years old and married with two children. Because of the statute of limitations, Rose could not be charged with a crime." Last edited by darwinbulldog; 06-21-2023 at 07:50 PM. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Can anybody ID these players? | timber63401 | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 9 | 10-26-2018 03:12 AM |
Can anyone name all these players? | jerrys | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 8 | 04-29-2018 08:28 AM |
Exactly What Percentage of All ML players become Hall-of-Fame players? | clydepepper | Watercooler Talk- ALL sports talk | 11 | 03-04-2018 04:44 PM |
Who are these 3 players | attellfan4life | Watercooler Talk- ALL sports talk | 11 | 08-06-2014 06:21 AM |
T-206 Southern League Players, Were These Cards of Minor League Players | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 18 | 08-19-2007 04:27 PM |