vandy125 Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Isn't one of the things that they consider for the HOF supposed to be the character of the player? It is not based purely on statistical acheivement. The guy gambled on baseball. Then, lied about it, and continued to lie about it. He is now telling a different story than what he started out with. How can you believe anything that he says? Does that type of character fit into the HOF? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory Pratt Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 "Character" is bulls***. It certainly wasn't in place at the beginning when Ty Cobb got the most votes despite the fact that everyone hated him. Other examples: Paul Molitor. Kirby Puckett. All the known cheaters. "Character." For baseball players. It's nice to have, but it doesn't matter as far as HOF. And by that I mean -- I'd give a guy a point or two for it, but I would never keep a guy out because he was mean to the media or perceived as selfish by teammates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Where did Molitor and Puckett do anything remotely close to changing the outcome of a game through cheating? I dont even remember either of them being labeled as cheaters to be honest with you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory Pratt Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 I was talking about character. Puckett was, if I recall correctly, a rapist and a wifebeater, with one being alleged and I believe the other was confirmed through police reports. Molitor was a drug addict. That's what I'm talking about: character. I don't use it to base a player but I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of the Hall. And there's nothing to suggest that Rose changed the outcome of a game by gambling on them. On the other hand, he changed the outcome of many games with his bat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Mar 15, 2007 -> 03:05 PM) I was talking about character. Puckett was, if I recall correctly, a rapist and a wifebeater, with one being alleged and I believe the other was confirmed through police reports. Molitor was a drug addict. That's what I'm talking about: character. I don't use it to base a player but I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of the Hall. And there's nothing to suggest that Rose changed the outcome of a game by gambling on them. On the other hand, he changed the outcome of many games with his bat. You need to get it thru your head that Rose did the one thing all ballplayers know will get them kicked out of baseball. There are signs about it in every clubhouse, they are told about it every spring many times, and it is drilled into them by mlb that if they gamble, they are f***ed. He broke the rule. The one, single rule he had to follow. Why do you have such a chubby about him getting in the hall? He is slime, and you can never believe a word he says since he has been lying to the public for so long. He SAYS he bet on his team to win. How do we really know that? If he bet on them to lose, would you have the same attitude towards him? He doesn't belong anywhere near there, unless he is pushing a broom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 SI Like most statements from Rose, the veracity of his story is highly questionable. Long before Rose opened his mouth this week, John Dowd, the Washington-based attorney whose investigation banished Rose to baseball purgatory with a mountain of evidence, including phone records and betting slips, has said he found that Rose did not bet on the Reds when Mario Soto or Bill Gullickson were his starting pitchers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 15, 2007 -> 07:31 PM) SI Dowd also had some evidence that Rose bet against his team at times, but didn't think the evidence was strong enough to put into his report. He also said at one point if he wasn't on a time schedule, he thought he could have proven Rose bet against the Reds at times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bschmaranz Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 So does this mean in 6 months when people forget about Pete Rose again and he wants to get on TV, he'll say he betted AGAINST his team? Just seems like the next step. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 QUOTE(bschmaranz @ Mar 16, 2007 -> 08:40 AM) So does this mean in 6 months when people forget about Pete Rose again and he wants to get on TV, he'll say he betted AGAINST his team? Just seems like the next step. Depends. On when someone gives him his next big payday or book deal. Or when he decides he nees more publicity to keep getting money for autographs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vandy125 Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Mar 15, 2007 -> 02:34 PM) "Character" is bulls***. It certainly wasn't in place at the beginning when Ty Cobb got the most votes despite the fact that everyone hated him. Other examples: Paul Molitor. Kirby Puckett. All the known cheaters. "Character." For baseball players. It's nice to have, but it doesn't matter as far as HOF. And by that I mean -- I'd give a guy a point or two for it, but I would never keep a guy out because he was mean to the media or perceived as selfish by teammates. Regardless of following it or not (I think that they should), it is part of their rules for election. This is taken straight from their web site: Baseball HOF 5. Voting — Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played. I see several things there that Pete Rose failed at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baines3 Posted March 18, 2007 Share Posted March 18, 2007 In the world of Pete Rose anything could happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max power Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Mar 15, 2007 -> 12:15 AM) Hypothetically: What if it comes out that, say, Greg Maddux is a crackhead. Are we going to keep him out of the hall because that's "messed up" or something? Keep him out for the kids? What if, say, it comes out that Mariano Rivera gambled on his own performances. "I'll bet I can save this game." Should he be kept out? I can't understand why Pete Rose isn't a HOFer. Because MLB wants to make a point about gambling? about lying? as if this organization of Jeff Loria's and Barry Bonds' is some living breathing allegory? I'm all for players being role-models but I don't think Kirby Puckett's violence against women should keep him from the Hall. I don't think Paul Molitor or Tim Raines' drug use should keep them from the Hall. I don't think Pete Rose' gambling should keep him from the Hall. Guess I'm just crazy. The fact is greg maddux isn't a crack head. He is a child molester. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.