2015 Baseball Hall of Fame elections

[Parade_Rain]

The college football HOF is not run by or affiliated with the NCAA.

And?

 

[TL1961]

And?

And what?

You called it the NCAA football hall of fame. I pointed out it isn't. I drew - and draw - no conclusions.

 

[TL1961]

Parade Rain, you call me "Captain Obvious" for pointing out that Rose is out of the HOF as penalty for his crime, and not for failure to be good enough. But you continued to argue in his favor by discussing his hit total.

Captain "Should be obvious, but it isn't to everyone".

 

[Parade_Rain]

And what?

You called it the NCAA football hall of fame. I pointed out it isn't. I drew - and draw - no conclusions.

Great. IOW, it's irrelevant.

 

[Parade_Rain]

Parade Rain, you call me "Captain Obvious" for pointing out that Rose is out of the HOF as penalty for his crime, and not for failure to be good enough. But you continued to argue in his favor by discussing his hit total.

If he didn't have the hit total, he wouldn't be HoF worthy. But, he isn't even borderline worthy like a Bagwell or perhaps a Mattingly. He has the highest total of hits EVER in MLB and it likely isn't going to be a record that is beaten. Why else would anyone give two craps about Pete Rose in a Hall of Fame discussion outside of the greatness he displayed on the field with 4,256 hits?

Captain "Should be obvious, but it isn't to everyone".

No one, and I will repeat more strongly, NO ONE is arguing that Rose should not have been punished and banned from baseball. WHAT MOST PEOPLE ON MY SIDE OF THE DISCUSSION are concerned with is the length of punishment and the hypocrisy of the length of punishment. That should be obvious to even Captain Obvious, obviously.

 

[chibears55]

Look.. Rose broke a Baseball Rule when he bet on baseball and his punishment was being banned from any future involvement in the game which im fine with...
What I dont agree with is for him not being voted into the HOF for accomplishments he has done as a player. .


The punishment was that he could not attend any official MLB function or take part in any Reds festivities. ..
no where does it say he ineligible to be voted into the HOF, just that he cant attend it if he got voted in...

The Writers or veteran committee could vote him in if they had the balls to do it..
Im sure if they did the commish would allow rose to attend. .

 

[TL1961]

If he didn't have the hit total, he wouldn't be HoF worthy. But, he isn't even borderline worthy like a Bagwell or perhaps a Mattingly. He has the highest total of hits EVER in MLB and it likely isn't going to be a record that is beaten. Why else would anyone give two craps about Pete Rose in a Hall of Fame discussion outside of the greatness he displayed on the field with 4,256 hits?

No one, and I will repeat more strongly, NO ONE is arguing that Rose should not have been punished and banned from baseball. WHAT MOST PEOPLE ON MY SIDE OF THE DISCUSSION are concerned with is the length of punishment and the hypocrisy of the length of punishment. That should be obvious to even Captain Obvious, obviously.

And yet you once again discuss his merits as a player.

Plenty of people are saying he shouldn't be banned.

What is hypocritical about giving a lifetime ban for a crime that has always carried with it a lifetime ban?

Crime X, results in penalty Y.

He committed crime X, but penalty Y is unfair?

How?

If anything, he was given an unfair shot at avoiding the penalty because he WAS the hits leader. They gave him opportunities to avoid the ban, which a non-HOF-worthy player most likely would not have received. He failed to take advantage of their generosity, and thus is still banned.

 

[SilenceS]

So, has anyone admitted the hypocrisy? We still allow completely caught steroid abusers to play the game but we ban a guy for maybe(not proven or admitted) For maybe throwing games. I know them steroids have no outcome on the game.

 

[Parade_Rain]

And yet you once again discuss his merits as a player.

That merit, as a contributor to the game, is the only reason the Hall of Fame exists.

Plenty of people are saying he shouldn't be banned.

Great strawman. There is a HUGE difference between "shouldn't be" and "shouldn't have been".

What is hypocritical about giving a lifetime ban for a crime that has always carried with it a lifetime ban?

Because you claim his gambling negatively impacted the game. So did the PEDS. FI, Braun won a MVP as a cheater. Kemp deserved the MVP. How many games did Milwaukee win thanks to the cheating? He was
mvp afterall. Hypocrisy

And just as an FYI, here is what Hank Aaron (the guy who broke Babe Ruth's HR record) has to say about Rose and the Hall of Fame-

Hank Aaron's support for Rose's Hall of Fame inclusion, which he mentioned at this weekend's ceremonies in Cooperstown, N.Y., is a strong indication of Selig's possible action, the Daily News reported.

"I would like to see Pete in," Aaron said. "He belongs there."

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4358260

More thoughts from the same article-

"I think a lot of the guys feel that it's been 20 years now for Pete, and would lean toward leniency and time served," an unnamed Hall of Famer said, according to the Daily News. "If he had admitted it in the first place and apologized way back then, he'd probably be in the Hall by now."
,,,
"I know there are still guys who feel strongly against him," said another Hall of Famer, according to the report. "And I don't know if that would change even if Selig clears him."

Hmmm. That sounds about the same as some of them feel about the roid users.

If anything, he was given an unfair shot at avoiding the penalty because he WAS the hits leader.

Quit discussing 4,256 and his merit as a player! :tongue:

 

[Parade_Rain]

Somewhere along the line, there was a discussion about Greenies vs Roids. Here is an interesting op/ed from Neyer-

...

What I cannot understand at all is the integrity argument without taking specifics into account. I still cannot see any distinction, integrity-wise, between using amphetamines in 1980 and using steroids in 2000. In both cases, players were using drugs illegally. In both cases, players were hoping to become better baseball players. In both cases, players were, wittingly or not, hoping to gain edges over players who were not using those same drugs.

Integrity has little or nothing to do with results. If two students cheat on a test and one gets and 92 and one gets a 73, does the C student have less integrity than the A student?

Another problem with the integrity argument is that there's almost no precedent for it. Do you know how many players have obviously been kept out of the Hall of Fame because of their perceived lack of integrity? One: Shoeless Joe Jackson. Until the late 1980s, when the Hall of Fame passed a rule to keep Pete Rose out, Jackson was technically eligible for election. Also, there was a rumor about Carl Mays throwing a World Series game that might have hurt his chances some. But he was marginal anyway. All the liars and cheats and spitballers and bat-corkers and sign-stealers who have plied the baseball trade, and nobody else has ever been locked out of Cooperstown because of the integrity clause. Maybe because, unlike Jackson, they were cheating to WIN. Which has always been considered perfectly acceptable behavior by nearly everyone involved.

...

http://www.sbnation.com/2013/12/30/...peds-steroids-amphetamines-greenies-hall-fame

 

[Parade_Rain]

Another blip about the elimination of amphetamines-

Red Bull is not just for teen age kids anymore. Ever since Major League Baseball starting testing for amphetamines in 2006 the game has changed. While steroid testing gets most of the headlines, it is the ban on amphetamines, known in baseball circle as “greenies” and on the street as “speed”, that effects more ballplayers every day. Amphetamines speed up the heart rate and have been proven to fight fatigue, increase alertness and sharpen reaction time. Ballplayers have used them to challenge the limits of endurance — and mask the accompanying pain.
,,,
The use of greenies in big league clubhouses was one of the worst kept secrets in baseball for decades. Players used to talk about whether to “bean up” or “play naked” — go without greenies. There were code names for pills, such as “black beauties.” In 2006 Oakland A’s third baseman Eric Chavez said, “Anybody who thinks you can go through the season normally and your body can just respond normally, after what we go through, is unreasonable. I’m not saying taking away greenies isn’t a good thing, but guys are definitely going to look for something as a replacement.”
...
http://manginphotography.net/2009/12/baseball-without-greenies-not-as-much-fun/

 

[chibears55]

I dont know maybe im missing something but for the life of me, i just dont get how ballplayers can get fatigued and need pick me ups playing a game of baseball. ... 3 hrs a day for 162 days in a 7 month period playing a game.. and if you really analyze it, how mych are they really doing during those 3 hours ? Bat 4 times, and field a few balls ? pitchers play even less, though they work the hardest when they do, throwing a ball 80-100+ times..

If these guys rested and took csre of themselves properly during the season, there would be no need for them to take any kind of pick me up drugs...

 

[brett05]

You can't dismiss the NCAA Football HoF vote just because it hurts your cause. I have no problem channeling patg006, since you suggested we were similar. Deal with it.

I'm not sure where but somewhere in this thread you lost it

 

[brett05]

So, has anyone admitted the hypocrisy? We still allow completely caught steroid abusers to play the game but we ban a guy for maybe(not proven or admitted) For maybe throwing games. I know them steroids have no outcome on the game.

No one has shown the rule that says get caught w roads and you're out. If there was then it would be hypocritical

 

[brett05]

Look.. Rose broke a Baseball Rule when he bet on baseball and his punishment was being banned from any future involvement in the game which im fine with...
What I dont agree with is for him not being voted into the HOF for accomplishments he has done as a player. .


The punishment was that he could not attend any official MLB function or take part in any Reds festivities. ..
no where does it say he ineligible to be voted into the HOF, just that he cant attend it if he got voted in...

The Writers or veteran committee could vote him in if they had the balls to do it..
Im sure if they did the commish would allow rose to attend. .

Because the HOF rules state no one on mlb banned list can be considered

 

[TC in Mississippi]

I'm pretty weary of this whole argument but for those of you arguing that Rose should get in I'm curious how you view induction. Is it sonething a player earns by his accomplishments or is it an honor bestowed upon a player once his accomplishments establish eligibility?

 

[chibears55]

Because the HOF rules state no one on mlb banned list can be considered

Yea which was voted on so coincidentally the first year Rose was eligible for the HOF...

*In 1991, the*Baseball Hall of Fame*formally voted to ban those on the "permanently ineligible" list from induction, after previously excluding such players by informal agreement among voters.

So, such rule of him not being able to be a member of the HOF wasnt in place until after he broke the gambling on baseball rule... so, yes he should of been banned from any baseball participation but not lose his eligibility of being a HOFer for what he accomplished when he played. .

The commish and HOF committee conspired against Rose to keep him out at the time by coming up with that rule..

 

[TL1961]

So, has anyone admitted the hypocrisy? We still allow completely caught steroid abusers to play the game but we ban a guy for maybe(not proven or admitted) For maybe throwing games. I know them steroids have no outcome on the game.

They did NOT ban him for throwing games.

They banned him for BETTING ON games. And he admitted his guilt.

Betting on games leads to suspicion of throwing games. But they did not suspend him for throwing games. What they suspended him for was a crime that carried with it a lifetime ban, established decades before he played. And there is NO question as to whether or not he is guilty of the crime for which he is punished. None.

 

[TL1961]

Once steroids were illegal, a penalty was attached.

Those who since have been caught have paid that penalty.

Because that penalty is not a lifetime ban, writers can still vote for these men if they so choose.

Some writers do vote for those who they feel had already proven worthiness.
Some writers vote for steroid users with no regard to their use - if they feel the guy is worthy, they vote for him. Stupid, IMO, but it's their right.
Some writers invoke the morality / code of conduct clause into this, and will not vote for anyone they suspect cheated.

But as far as MLB is concerned, there is no hypocrisy. They turned a blind eye for years, and were complicit, but now that the rule is in place, penalties have been handed out to all found guilty, in accordance with the rule/CBA.

 

[TL1961]

Yea which was voted on so coincidentally the first year Rose was eligible for the HOF...

*In 1991, the*Baseball Hall of Fame*formally voted to ban those on the "permanently ineligible" list from induction, after previously excluding such players by informal agreement among voters.

So, such rule of him not being able to be a member of the HOF wasnt in place until after he broke the gambling on baseball rule... so, yes he should of been banned from any baseball participation but not lose his eligibility of being a HOFer for what he accomplished when he played. .

The commish and HOF committee conspired against Rose to keep him out at the time by coming up with that rule..

I am one fan who considers the baseball Hall of Fame to be "baseball", so I believe that is just and proper, and is a no-brainer. If I was a player who knew I could be "banned from baseball" if I committed the wrong crime, I would have assumed it meant the HOF too.

It was never specifically stated that it DID or DID NOT include the HOF, so the commissioner and committee clarified it. They didn't change it. Ask Joe Jackson.