2015 Baseball Hall of Fame elections

[TL1961]

There are a number of hall of famers that dont fit the latter. They are also non deserving players in the hall because they were well liked by media. Unless you do a heinous act, your personal life should have no influence on the hall. The hall is about personal accomplishments. Not what some Tom, Dick, and Jerry find morally acceptable.

His personal life is not keeping him from the Hall. His crime against the sport is.

Betting on baseball should not land him in jail (though it WAS illegal also, BTW). But it should mean he is banned from baseball.

If he robs a bank, he should go to jail. But that crime does not mean he should automatically be banned from baseball. Some may argue against inclusion in the hall for that , also, under the moral conduct clause, but that doesn't mean he should not be allowed to work as a hitting instructor or scout, for example.

He is NOT being kept from the Hall on the morals clause. he is being kept from the HALL because his crime calls for a ban.

Nobody is equating the betting with worse crimes against society.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

There are a number of hall of famers that dont fit the latter. They are also non deserving players in the hall because they were well liked by media. Unless you do a heinous act, your personal life should have no influence on the hall. The hall is about personal accomplishments. Not what some Tom, Dick, and Jerry find morally acceptable.

This isn't some Tom, Dick or Harry, this was what many consider the cardinal rule of baseball. It's not valid to say others did it and didn't get caught either, Rose did get caught and worse continued to obfuscate his involvement. Yes there are some very bad folks in the HoF, violent men, racist men and yes gamblers but those acts either weren't discovered at the time of induction or were ignored as part of their times. Either way it has no bearing on Rose. I agree the HoF is about personal accomplishments and those acts have earned Rose a prominent place in it. You cannot look at the record books or tour the HoF without seeing and acknowledging what he did. An actual induction into the HoF is an honor to be bestowed on those who have earned it. Achievements on the field are the primary basis but there are conduct qualifications as well. Again just because others have gotten in despite those qualifications does not excuse Rose. If you watch three people run a red light and then get pulled over and ticketed for doing it yourself does the fact that other did it without penalty affect the resolution of your case at all? Of course not and it shouldn't here. In addition Rose negotiated his eligibility in 2000 and the subsequently, once again, vehemently denied his involvement. In 2004, while again negotiating his reinstatement, he admitted his involvement but not to the degree that asked of him. It wasn't until 2007 that he came completely clean and by that point no one was inclined to negotiate again.

So I ask again, what has Rose done that would be deserving of reinstatement? Did he come clean immediately and beg for forgiveness? Did he admit his guilt the first time he was given an opportunity for reinstatement? How about the second time? Does Rose deserve any of the blame for his not being in the Hall or should his personal conduct have nothing to do with that (despite being in the qualifications themselves)?

 

[SilenceS]

Did anyone read the article? So, why is it ok for MLB to bring him back to the game when money is involved?

 

[Parade_Rain]

....
Betting on baseball should not land him in jail (though it WAS illegal also, BTW). But it should mean he is banned from baseball.

If he robs a bank, he should go to jail. But that crime does not mean he should automatically be banned from baseball. Some may argue against inclusion in the hall for that , also, under the moral conduct clause, but that doesn't mean he should not be allowed to work as a hitting instructor or scout, for example.

He is NOT being kept from the Hall on the morals clause. he is being kept from the HALL because his crime calls for a ban.

Nobody is equating the betting with worse crimes against society.

And robbery by a citizen requires a certain punishment. One that isn't lifetime and likely offers a chance of parole. No one here, NO ONE, has suggested Rose shouldn't have been punished. The lifetime ban is beyond lame at this point. It's time to move on.

 

[Parade_Rain]

So I ask again, what has Rose done that would be deserving of reinstatement?

Time.

 

[brett05]

Wrong. Some people want him out. He's still there. Why is Ty Cobb in? Everyone seems to hate him...if indeed, the Hall is about "deeds, sportsmanship and conduct". The fact is the HoF is meant for deeds on the field. On the field Rose has 4256. The best ever. The best ever is not in the HoF.

You say wrong and then show why it is right. The analogy is wrong because OJ and Cobb are in the Hall already. If they make a rule that allows someone to be removed and these men qualify then so be it. It's their "playground."

 

[TC in Mississippi]

Time.

Ok, here's where that doesn't work for me. Let's say we were talking about a potential job in the game. Some GM wanted to hire Rose a scout or whatever, then I could certainly see time as a factor in the decision to let him back in. I still may not agree but in that case the argument that enough time has passed certainly is a valid argument to why someone should be allowed to hire hime. The HoF is not a job though, it's an honor bestowed up you based on certain criteria. It could be argued that he should be allowed to work, but to receive a rare accolade? I don't think so.

Let's look at a hypothetical in another business. For fifteen years a man, let's call him Joe, works for a company as a salesman, regional sales manager, national sales manager and eventually VP of sales for his company. One of the things his company does is give awards to its employees that come with certain perks, vacation, cash or what have you. Joe is well on his way to earning one of those awards, let's call it lifetime achievement at ABC Corporation. Now before receiving the award it's discovered that Joe has been giving company secrets to friends at other companies and that this went on for several years. Joe is summarily dismissed and of course does not recieve his achievement reward. Twenty years later he goes back to the company and asks for his prize because enough time has passed. How do you think that goes over? Now let's say that a young man that Joe had hired is now President of the company, that man could certainly hire Joe as a consultant or what not but if he were to suggest giving Joe his award denied to him by his own actions I'm kind of guessing he wouldn't be President of the company anymore. Joe still achieved the things he achieved, he most likely is still credited with those things by people he had worked with but the passage of time does not bring back an honor that was to be given him before his transgressions were discovered. No chance.

So back to Rose. He did great things in the game, it is impossible to erase the memory or the impact of those things, it is impossible to erase his records that he holds in the game but it it is possible to withhold a very rare honor that those achievements had previously earned him before he violated part of the standards that would net him tht honor. No amount of time will change that.

 

[brett05]

Yeah. Once it's refused you can never get grace or redemption again.

Good thing the only one saying that is you. This is a strawman that you are putting up and knocking down though no one here has made such a claim. My own words said

He refused both at an "incountable" rate

are no where near once.

It's been so long his original judge and jury has passed on.

The length of Bart's passing is meaningless in this discussion.

The next judge and jury let the game be stained in other ways and turned a blind eye to save the game until it was decided people were tired of how the game was saved.

The next was Fay, but I get what you are saying about Bud. Unfortunately it has nothing to do with Pete no matter how people want to correlate the two.

 

[brett05]

Ummmm, soo, MLB can keep him out of the Hall but when money is involved they have no problem welcoming him back?

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-b...rbmk3BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMTQEY29sbwNiZjEEdnRpZAM-

That's an indictment on Selig, not on Rose getting in. The errors of Keith trying to correlate PED's and Pete's gambling are laughable.

 

[SilenceS]

That's an indictment on Selig, not on Rose getting in. The errors of Keith trying to correlate PED's and Pete's gambling are laughable.

Do you not think that ped's players will get in eventually? They lied and lied and lied but they will eventually give in. Shit, Ryan Braun made baseball look stupid a couple of years ago and hurt the integrity of not only the game but of the drug testing system. In fact, his steroid use directly affected the outcome of games. Where is his lifetime ban?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[brett05]

And robbery by a citizen requires a certain punishment. One that isn't lifetime and likely offers a chance of parole. No one here, NO ONE, has suggested Rose shouldn't have been punished. The lifetime ban is beyond lame at this point. It's time to move on.

You are entitled to that opinion just as we who oppose are entitled to the opinion that given the circumstances anything less would have tarnished the game and there are no reasons to lessen. In fact since the gambling basically only more reasons have been added to make sure it is enforced.

 

[brett05]

Do you not think that ped's players will get in eventually? They lied and lied and lied but they will eventually give in. ... Ryan Braun made baseball look stupid a couple of years ago and hurt the integrity of not only the game but of the drug testing system. In fact, his steroid use directly affected the outcome of games. Where is his lifetime ban?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Where is the rule that says if you take drugs you are banned for life?

 

[brett05]

And no, I do not think PED guys will get in via the BBWAA

 

[TC in Mississippi]

And no, I do not think PED guys will get in via the BBWAA

Nor do I. Barry Bonds, for instance, will never sniff the Hall and with him you could actually make the argument that he had the numbers to enter the HoF before he ever took PEDs.

 

[SilenceS]

Where is the rule that says if you take drugs you are banned for life?

Because it's a hypocrisy. It's what you don't see. It's also hypocritical for selling to make money off rose for baseball but won't reinstate him. Rose thought when he signed the admission of guilt that he would be up for reinstatement. Look at the court system. They have mandates on offenses. Do they show leniency for good behavior? Yes. People are playing the moral police


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SilenceS]

Nor do I. Barry Bonds, for instance, will never sniff the Hall and with him you could actually make the argument that he had the numbers to enter the HoF before he ever took PEDs.

There are a lot of writers who disagree. I read all over the place that when the old guard of writers gets out that the new generation will put them in. It's already gaining momentum. It's completely hypocritical


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TL1961]

Because it's a hypocrisy. It's what you don't see. It's also hypocritical for selling to make money off rose for baseball but won't reinstate him. Rose thought when he signed the admission of guilt that he would be up for reinstatement. Look at the court system. They have mandates on offenses. Do they show leniency for good behavior? Yes. People are playing the moral police


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are now arguing whether a punishment for a different crime should be harsher than it is. A valid argument, but it has no bearing on Rose.

I could look at a murderer who got life in prison and a child molester who got three years, and say the child molester should get a harsher sentence. But that doesn't mean the murderer's sentence should be changed.

And, NO.....I am not equating betting on baseball with child molestation or murder simply by using these examples.

 

[TL1961]

There are a lot of writers who disagree. I read all over the place that when the old guard of writers gets out that the new generation will put them in. It's already gaining momentum. It's completely hypocritical


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

None of this steroid argument has any bearing on whether a man should pay the prescribed punishment for a crime he committed - whether that be the man who bet on baseball OR the murderer.

You wouldn't say the murderer from down the street should not pay his penalty because steroid users get in the hall. Steroid users getting in or not getting in has NO bearing on whether Rose should pay for his own crime.

 

[Parade_Rain]

Ok, here's where that doesn't work for me. Let's say we were talking about a potential job in the game. Some GM wanted to hire Rose a scout or whatever, then I could certainly see time as a factor in the decision to let him back in. I still may not agree but in that case the argument that enough time has passed certainly is a valid argument to why someone should be allowed to hire hime. The HoF is not a job though, it's an honor bestowed up you based on certain criteria. It could be argued that he should be allowed to work, but to receive a rare accolade? I don't think so.

This is the opposite of how it should happen. There is no reason why he shouldn't be allowed in the Hall of Fame provided he isn't hired as a game day coach. Scout? How could he possibly negatively impact the game? The Hall Of Fame is an honor bestowed upon numbers achieved on the field, not how many wives someone has had or casual acquaintances they've passed STD's to. Rose is the All-Time #1 in number of hits in the game and unless there are some rules changes that significantly hamper pitching, 4,256 will never be approached by another player. Those numbers he put up matter and Charlie Hustle belongs in the Hall.

 

[Parade_Rain]

None of this steroid argument has any bearing on whether a man should pay the prescribed punishment for a crime he committed - whether that be the man who bet on baseball OR the murderer.

You wouldn't say the murderer from down the street should not pay his penalty because steroid users get in the hall. Steroid users getting in or not getting in has NO bearing on whether Rose should pay for his own crime.

The application of law and rules are based upon precedent. To say that doesn't matter denies how our justice system works.