Should PED Users, Pete Rose, and/or Shoeless Joe be in the Hall of Fame?

[Lee]

Perhaps sadly, I did know this. She was clearly not a Hall of Famer

She actually was a HOFer in a different sense. Born while her Dad was between terms, she was very popular nationally. Remember Grover was our only non consecutive 2 term president. In fact, Baby Ruth was so popular, they named a candy bar after her, lol.

 

[bronko]

None of them deserve HOF membership. Cheating, even if its widespread and systemic, should never be condoned or honored. Gambling on your own team in season gets you banned, and Rose signed off on the discipline when it was handed out. And fixing games, how can you even make an argument that that shouldn't get you tossed?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I was meaning more should he be....he took some peds from what I know, good sources, the almost all did, I think we are splitting hairs if it matters what type of ped they took.

That depends. Are we talking about HGH, or something else? And if so, what?

If it was just uppers, there may not be much difference between those kind of PED's and Troy Percival's coffee addiction.

 

[Lee]

That depends. Are we talking about HGH, or something else? And if so, what?

If it was just uppers, there may not be much difference between those kind of PED's and Troy Percival's coffee addiction.

more like in the hgh family, or some other non anibolic steroids

 

[TxBuckeye]

yes

 

[DJJOE]

The huge contracts that were the result of the steroids and HGH changed the game for fans. It's no longer accessible to the sort of fans who put over 86,000 of themselves in Municipal Stadium for a September 12, 1954 doubleheader with the Yankees. Instead of sharing the wealth with those fans in the form of lower ticket prices the owners and the players have treated us like doggy-do. Cheating has worked for them and it's clear that it will continue. Let the fans of 2120, if there are any left, decide this.

 

[jack hammill]

McGwire and Sosa I think belong in. Those two are in a class of their own. I mean you say their names like Lennon and McCartney. Never one without the other. They saved baseball.

Bonds and Clemens are assholes driven by ego. Fuck em.

Manny and ARod were just so talented. I put them in.

I think Pete Rose is a good lesson and shouldn’t be in. Same with Shoeless.

Sheffield? Nah. Palmero? Not after his act at
Congress.

Not on the list but Thome? He def juiced but he is a nice guy. Probably final ballot.

I have felt for sometime that Rose should have a plaque and on it should be a statement that he was banned for betting on the game

Jackson is a different case ... it may have been “understood” but the rule was not written and posted on the wall that you could not wager - he was sucked in and played all out

no comparison

 

[Benway]

It's quite possible to be banned from MLB but Not from the Hall of Fame, and it Has Happened. The two entities are entirely discrete institutions with very different functions.
Including Pete Rose in the Hall will, in no way, compromise the (albeit dubious) integrity of MLB.

 

[CATS44]

I voted for Shoeless Joe enthuistically, and hesitantly for Rose.

There was never any evidence that Jackson did anything wrong, and his play in the 1919 Series belies suggestions otherwise.

He batted .375, made no errors, and threw out a runner at the plate. His twelve hits in the Series was a record that lasted 45 years.

If he was guilty of anything, it was being unschooled.

Rose is a more difficult case. We all know both sides, which have been debated for decades. Any connection to gambling is a disqualification. On the other hand, gambling carries the strong suggestion that a player/manager will somehow perform at a lower than usual level, giving an opponent an advantage. There is nobody that wanted to win anymore, or gave more effort, than Pete Rose...and I never saw anything that suggested that he was anything less than Charlie Hustle.

Rose basically bet on himself. He did nothing that have him...or his opponent...an edge. As such, I dont view Rose as a cheater. In todays game, free agents bet on themselves all the time. My argument is a stretch, I know. I can easily see the other side of the debate.

In other words, I see the Shoeless Joe situation as a travesty. Rose's is truly debatable.

As for the others...including our beloved Manny being Manny...they outright cheated to gain an advantage. This IMO is not like throwing a spitter, which has been part of a game within a game for a century. They are called Performance Enhancing Drugs for a reason.

The argument that everybody was doing it is specious IMO. I used that very argument on several occasions with my parents. It didnt work for me back then, and it doesnt work with me now.

They cheated. They got caught. Too bad. They lose.

 

[2 For The Brew]

I voted for Shoeless Joe enthuistically, and hesitantly for Rose.

There was never any evidence that Jackson did anything wrong, and his play in the 1919 Series belies suggestions otherwise.

He batted .375, made no errors, and threw out a runner at the plate. His twelve hits in the Series was a record that lasted 45 years.

If he was guilty of anything, it was being unschooled.

Rose is a more difficult case. We all know both sides, which have been debated for decades. Any connection to gambling is a disqualification. On the other hand, gambling carries the strong suggestion that a player/manager will somehow perform at a lower than usual level, giving an opponent an advantage. There is nobody that wanted to win anymore, or gave more effort, than Pete Rose...and I never saw anything that suggested that he was anything less than Charlie Hustle.

Rose basically bet on himself. He did nothing that have him...or his opponent...an edge. As such, I dont view Rose as a cheater. In todays game, free agents bet on themselves all the time. My argument is a stretch, I know. I can easily see the other side of the debate.

In other words, I see the Shoeless Joe situation as a travesty. Rose's is truly debatable.

As for the others...including our beloved Manny being Manny...they outright cheated to gain an advantage. This IMO is not like throwing a spitter, which has been part of a game within a game for a century. They are called Performance Enhancing Drugs for a reason.

The argument that everybody was doing it is specious IMO. I used that very argument on several occasions with my parents. It didnt work for me back then, and it doesnt work with me now.

They cheated. They got caught. Too bad. They lose.

Rose didn't "bet on himself". The betting in question was when he was managing the Reds, not playing for them (later years). He did NOT bet uniformly day-to-day, and his bets varied depending on who was pitching. There's also the likelihood that the bets or lack thereof influenced his relief pitching decisions.

For me you ALWAYS come down FAR more harshly on managers than individual contributors (and the more important the managerial role the harder you come down on them).

Rose was guilty of a gross abuse of trust, and decided not to have a hearing that was offered by MLB (no doubt because he was clearly guilty and the evidence was overwhelming).

A PLAYER who did what Rose did would be banned for life (legacy of 1919 scandal). For a MANAGER to do that -- frankly, MLB would be foolish to give Rose any kind of break at all.

He started out as Charlie Hustle. He ended up as Charlie Hustler.

As far as "betting on yourself" meaning placing a bet on your own team in violation of the most important rule of baseball and equating that with "betting on yourself" in the context of going for free agency instead of signing a earlier contract for less money and less risk -- that's three words with two completely different meanings. It's like saying someone who made a killing in the stock market is guilty of murder just like Mr. Green who made a killing in the Conservatory with the Lead Pipe. If that's the best argument that can be mustered in defense of Pete Rose then it's no wonder Pete ducked the hearing.

 

[Derek]

I voted for Shoeless Joe enthuistically, and hesitantly for Rose.

There was never any evidence that Jackson did anything wrong, and his play in the 1919 Series belies suggestions otherwise.

He batted .375, made no errors, and threw out a runner at the plate. His twelve hits in the Series was a record that lasted 45 years.

If he was guilty of anything, it was being unschooled.

Rose is a more difficult case. We all know both sides, which have been debated for decades. Any connection to gambling is a disqualification. On the other hand, gambling carries the strong suggestion that a player/manager will somehow perform at a lower than usual level, giving an opponent an advantage. There is nobody that wanted to win anymore, or gave more effort, than Pete Rose...and I never saw anything that suggested that he was anything less than Charlie Hustle.

Rose basically bet on himself. He did nothing that have him...or his opponent...an edge. As such, I dont view Rose as a cheater. In todays game, free agents bet on themselves all the time. My argument is a stretch, I know. I can easily see the other side of the debate.

In other words, I see the Shoeless Joe situation as a travesty. Rose's is truly debatable.

As for the others...including our beloved Manny being Manny...they outright cheated to gain an advantage. This IMO is not like throwing a spitter, which has been part of a game within a game for a century. They are called Performance Enhancing Drugs for a reason.

The argument that everybody was doing it is specious IMO. I used that very argument on several occasions with my parents. It didnt work for me back then, and it doesnt work with me now.

They cheated. They got caught. Too bad. They lose.

What I've come to realize in recent years is that it's not so much about the days Rose bet on his team (that he was managing), but more about the message it sent to other bettors on the days he didn't bet on his team, or bet less.

Even if he was always trying to win, there's no doubt that he would have managed games differently depending on whether he had money on the line. Ride a starter 125 pitches instead of 105. Throw your best reliever 3 days straight, but then refrain from betting when he needs a day off. He's a total piece of shit even if he did just bet on himself.

However, as I said earlier in the thread, I don't see what keeping him out of the HoF accomplishes other than giving those who visit one less exhibit about one of the greatest ballplayers to ever do it.

 

[David.]

Did not know. If he is in then Bonds, McGwire and Sosa are all in. Thome juiced.

Just look at the 1994 vs 1997 pictures here. And how does a guy start having his best seasons in his 30s?

Nurse the Hate: The Jim Thome Question

This is Jim Thome's rookie card in 1994. Above that is Jim Thome in 1997. Six hundred home runs is a magical number. Here’s who has hit 60...

nursethehate.blogspot.com

He just looks fatter

 

[Derek]

He just looks fatter

Also, a reminder that the baseball card in that article is from 1991, not 1994

 

[lupenexpress]

It's quite possible to be banned from MLB but Not from the Hall of Fame, and it Has Happened. The two entities are entirely discrete institutions with very different functions.
Including Pete Rose in the Hall will, in no way, compromise the (albeit dubious) integrity of MLB.

I and I trust others would love to see your source ... as all indicators have always been if you are on the banned list you cannot be voted upon

 

[Benway]

I and I trust others would love to see your source ... as all indicators have always been if you are on the banned list you cannot be voted upon

Ahh, the trick here is that the players to which I refer had Already been voted in and were subsequently banned.
I refer to Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays, banned from associating with MLB teams after taking positions as casino greeters in Las Vegas. (They have long since been reinstated.)
True, it's a tenuous analogy, but technically an analogous situation for the purposes of argument.

I and I appreciate your response!