HOF Snub

SAump · #1 (**permalink**) Wed Jan 10, 2007, 10:33pm

I started the thread to discuss elgible MLB HOF candidates. I did so after recalling how our members wrote their own personal recollections in kind regards for Mr. Buck O'Neil. In this respect, I would like to ask our members to continue the discussion on any former MLB star denied entry into the MLB HOF.

The following quote kinda sums up my opinion. "I don't know if there is a timetable. I don't think there is a timetable, but hopefully writers will maybe do a little bit more research," Blyleven said.

Source: http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slu...v=ap&type=lgns

What would you like to add?

SanDiegoSteve · #2 (**permalink**) Wed Jan 10, 2007, 10:36pm

Rich Gossage.

DG · #3 (**permalink**) Wed Jan 10, 2007, 11:00pm

Until Pete Rose is enshrined I have no interest in others who have been snubbed.

Gwynn and Ripken are great entries.

kylejt · #4 (**permalink**) Wed Jan 10, 2007, 11:56pm

Here's what I don't like about it. Gossage will get in next year, that's almost a given. So, in the voters mind he's a HoF player, but just not THIS year. So the question is, how will his stats change between this year and next?

It's such a dumb process to let players hang on year after year. Either you is, or you ain't. You get one shot on the ballot, and one more with vets. One and done.

SAump · #5 (**permalink**) Thu Jan 11, 2007, 12:41am

Quote:

Originally Posted by kylejt

Here's what I don't like about it. Gossage will get in next year, that's almost a given. So, in the voters mind he's a HoF player, but just not THIS year. So the question is, how will his stats change between this year and next?

It's such a dumb process to let players hang on year after year. Either you is, or you ain't. You get one shot on the ballot, and one more with vets. One and done.

One shot on the ballot without 75% approval is the criteria which keeps almost everyone out. You actually suggested that a player who fails to meet the criteria no longer deserves any other consideration. End of arguement, the baseball writers have spoken. Writers may think of the criteria as some type of lifetime achievement award in comparison to the "chosen few" who have already been selected.

If such a criteria were in place, Mr. Blyleven and any number of '79 Pirates and '87 Twins would no longer deserve consideration. I think you will agree with me that the determining factor should be the statistics. For example, every single player has unique talents. Mr. Blyleven and others all have the statistics to prove their HOF elgibility. Each player should be chosen based on any particular talent among his group of peers. Mr. Blyleven and others should have walked right through the selection process.

DG · #6 (**permalink**) Thu Jan 11, 2007, 09:23pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by PWL

They have a special wing for him in Las Vegas in the Gamblers Hall of Fame. I have no use for Hit King myself. He knew the penalty. He finally stopped lieing. He should stop crying.

HOF for players is about how well they played. HOF for managers is about how well they managed.

DG · #7 (**permalink**) Thu Jan 11, 2007, 10:26pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by PWL

Rose broke cardinal sin number one and two. No player shall bet on baseball. It is there in black and white and flashing neon light. Now the supposed steroid users are going to feel the wrath of the voters. One of the nicest guys in the game will probably wait many years to get in, if ever at all (Rafael Palmiero).

I don't see Rose ever getting in, unless he has a ticket. Even now he is not welcome around the game at all. I know people will say he should get in because of his numbers and how hard he played the game. But make no mistake, Rose was more concerned if he went four for four than if his team won the game.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/roseontrial.html#

You are ill advised. Do some research.

GarthB · #8 (**permalink**) Thu Jan 11, 2007, 10:50pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by DG

http://espn.go.com/mlb/roseontrial.html#

You are ill advised. Do some research.

That site is dated and inaccurate. Rose admitted on national television to ABC's Charles Gibson that he bet on baseball and he bet on his team.

They replayed those admissions this past week and will probably do so everytime the HOF ballots are mailed.

DG · #9 (**permalink**) Fri Jan 12, 2007, 12:22am

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarthB

That site is dated and inaccurate. Rose admitted on national television to ABC's Charles Gibson that he bet on baseball and he bet on his team.

Has he admitted to betting against his team?

GarthB · #10 (**permalink**) Fri Jan 12, 2007, 12:29am

Quote:

Originally Posted by DG

Has he admitted to betting against his team?

I honestly don't know. I believe by the regulations, that is irrelevant.

Edited to add: Just in case this becomes an emotion filled debate on Rose's worthiness for the HOF, let me note, I don't care. I'm merely an observer. According to those who have seen the original investigation report and to his own public statements, he vlolated certain rules that carry a rather severe penalty. Whether or not that penalty is made to stick is for others to decide.

Again, I really don't care.

kylejt · #11 (**permalink**) Fri Jan 12, 2007, 01:17am

Quote:

Originally Posted by DG

Has he admitted to betting against his team?

Let's say he only bet on his team to win.

The bookies will then look at the days he doesn't bet on his team to win, and suppose that Rose won't put in his best effort, or doesn't believe, given his inside information, his team will win. Do that in the stock market, and they call it insider trading and you go to jail. MLB has it's own penalty, and it's been imposed on Rose.

Back to original topic. There's a certain level of creme-de-la-creme to being a first ballot HoFer. So be it. The writers don't seem to like putting "also rans" in with the big guys. So next year, with no shoe-ins, the also rans will get their due. I guess that's how the game is played.

SanDiegoSteve · #12 (**permalink**) Fri Jan 12, 2007, 05:22pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by PWL

I suppose it okay for umpires to bet on baseball even if they are not working the game they are betting on.

I don't think anyone said that it was right for Pete Rose to bet on baseball. He finally admitted to something that I'm quite sure he was ashamed of, and couldn't come to grips for years about. I think he was embarrassed that he had hurt the game, and struggled with the guilt. Until you have walked a mile in Pete's cleats, you don't know what he went through, or why it took him so long to come clean.

Pete Rose's statistics as a player warrant his inclusion into the Hall of Fame. Keeping him out because of something he did as a manager is unfair, IMO.

Gaylord Perry is in the HOF, and he cheated in baseball on a daily basis, and I don't see anybody squawking about that.

kylejt · #13 (**permalink**) Fri Jan 12, 2007, 06:08pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Gaylord Perry is in the HOF, and he cheated in baseball on a daily basis, and I don't see anybody squawking about that.

Doctoring a baseball, and helping organized crime bet on baseball is pretty far apart. One gets you ejected from a game, the other gets you ejected from THE GAME.

I don't like Pete because he's dumb. Just plain dumb.

DG · #14 (**permalink**) Fri Jan 12, 2007, 07:24pm

Pete Rose was one of the greatest players to ever play. He made some mistakes as a manager including betting on baseball.

You can do many crimes and get off with a few years in prison, but only after conviction by a jury, not conviction by one person. You can also get early release in some cases.

IMO there are a lot more serious crimes than betting on baseball games. Kyle makes a good point about insider trading, but someone convicted of insider trading would not be penalized for life. However, I disagree that he was dumb. You can't play the game like Pete did and be dumb. You have to analyze and adjust to put up the stats he did. He was an all star at many positions, and someone dumb can not adjust enough at the plate to be the all time hit leader in major league baseball.

Pete Rose belongs in the hall, as a player, for his performance as a player.

Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken also belong, no doubt about it.

That is all I will say on the subject.

SanDiegoSteve · #15 (**permalink**) Fri Jan 12, 2007, 08:04pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by kylejt

Doctoring a baseball, and helping organized crime bet on baseball is pretty far apart. One gets you ejected from a game, the other gets you ejected from THE GAME.

I don't like Pete because he's dumb. Just plain dumb.

Doctoring a baseball, each and every time he played, is far worse in my opinion, than a former player, now a manager, betting on baseball. I really doubt that Rose ever intentionally lost a game. He was too much of a competitor. He just liked the action of gambling. Gaylord Perry, as a player, not after his career, cheated by using Vaseline on the baseball, causing it to do unnatural movements. Many people struck out, and made other costly outs, due to Perry's grease-balls and spitters. This caused their BA's, as well as other offensive statistics to suffer directly because of his cheating.

But baseball has turned a blind eye to this. I would be willing to wager (a bit of the Captain in me) that there are players in the HOF who did drugs back in the 60's and 70's, but you'll never hear anything like that brought up. Uppers, downers, cocaine...all readily available on the training table back in the day. Where is the outrage about this?

It is long overdue to put Rose into the Hall of Fame for what he did as a baseball player, not what he did later on as a manager.

And Kyle, the fact that you don't like Pete Rose (or his intelligence level), or anyone else not liking Pete Rose, is irrelevant to the situation of his induction into the Hall of Fame. There are many unlikable players in the Hall.