Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
The questioner noted, as many Rose supporters do, that some people who have used performance-enhancing drugs may get into the Hall of Fame while Rose will not.
Is Johnny Bench auditioning for the Bob Feller role?
The first is worrying about the integrity of the game. The second is denying historical fact.
I support the MLB ban but not the HoF ban. The first is worrying about the integrity of the game. The second is denying historical fact.
2.If Pete Rose is not in the Hall of Fame, then it is hypocritical to display his memorabilia.
We are the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum. It is important to make the distinction between the two. The "Hall of Fame" refers to the one-room gallery housing the 206 bronze plaques of those players, pioneers, executives, managers and umpires who have been elected to the Hall of Fame.
The rest of the complex -two buildings and three floors - contain the Museum, showcasing the history of Baseball. Over 6,000 artifacts and photographs are on display here, most of which are not Hall of Famer related.
Here are represented hundreds and hundreds of non-Hall of Famers, who for a career, a season, a game, or even a sole at-bat, have made a significant contribution to Baseball history. Bobby Thomson, Don Larsen, Johnny Vander Meer, Roger Maris, Joe Jackson and Bill Mazeroski, to mention only a few, may not be elected Hall of Famers at this time; but who can deny their niche in our game's history?
For Pete Rose not to be represented here would be an aberration. He, as much or more than anyone, deserves to be recognized for his outstanding accomplishments on the playing field.
Umm, no. Betting on your team to win when you manage them has not been historically viewed as the most serious crime a player (*) can commit within the game.
Rose very well have been voted in in the pre-moralizing, pre-internet environment of 1990-91.
Umm, no. Betting on your team to win when you manage them has not been historically viewed as the most serious crime a player (*) can commit within the game. Throwing games is. Rose's acts bore at most a superficial resemblance to that most serious crime.
(*) [Sic]. Rose didn't commit any "crimes" as a player.
a) not as serious as actually throwing games
b) carries the same penalty
It's also plausible that actually throwing games or betting against your team is unpardonable while betting on your team to win (or some form of guilty knowledge) could be pardonable. Albeit with strings attached.
betting to win is just as bad as any other betting. the gambler has to keep winning for it to be sustainable, and that's not possible. so at some point he has to lay off. when he does he has to let the gamblers he's betting with know this to give them a chance to recoup. its a slippery slope to complete corruption. the bettor eventually plays (or manages) not to win but to satisfy gambling imperatives, which results in the misconduct. one inexorably leads to the other, even if the chain is not completed, so it becomes necessary to ban any gambling to forestall all other.
... the path that Bench alludes to (presumably getting professional help and then staying away from gambling) ...
I think the problem is that MLB doesn't want to be in a position of having to determine whether you were actually throwing games or "just" betting to win.
(BTW, may I make a polite request that you use proper punctuation and formatting?)
There has always been a vocal minority willing to turn a blind eye toward Pete's actions, or even believe his denials for decades despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, but nothing like 75% of the BBWAA ever took that stance.
Those weren't really performance enhancing drugs, because Hank Aaron and Willie Mays used them.
Rose didn't commit any "crimes" as a player.
Rose bet on games while he was a player/manager in 1985 and 1986 according to the Dowd Report.
no, phred is NOT me in drag.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (9 members)
Page rendered in 0.6672 seconds, 74 querie(s) executed