You guys clearly don't understand the journey of the American lower economic class male and the tragedy of living in the country with the greatest opportunities on earth when you don't have the ability to capitalize on those opportunities. That, and Cadillac Ranch really rocks. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
You guys clearly don't understand the journey of the American lower economic class male and the tragedy of living in the country with the greatest opportunities on earth when you don't have the ability to capitalize on those opportunities. That, and Cadillac Ranch really rocks.
Bob Costas said it yesterday…. If you’ve got a slow day on radio, just beg the question of Pete Rose and the HOF, and you’ll get lit up …
Everyone has their opinion.
The HOF gets a lot of things wrong. The writers get a lot of things wrong.
In 2006? The writers voted in Negro league players, executives, others, but no Buck O’Neil. It was egregious. And Buck spoke in Cooperstown upon his invite.
Pete would never be that gracious in a million years. Buck was magnanimous, Pete was not.
Pete and Paul Giammati, and MLB bent over backwards for Pete. He signed his own fate, and I guarantee the ugly stuff about Pete is likely NOTHING compared to the sealed reports that Pete never wanted public, probably lead to him gambling a LOT, on his team, against his team, young girls he was fucking, the mob, bad bets, and he’s lucky he only went to prison for tax evasion.
That’s your hero?
Oh, and then he decides to live in Las Vegas and make every trip to Cooperstown and set up a table to autograph baseballs.
Originally Posted by GabyKeepsMeWarm:
This ****ing guy….
Polarizing as it gets.
This thread of simply RIP….
Bob Costas said it yesterday…. If you’ve got a slow day on radio, just beg the question of Pete Rose and the HOF, and you’ll get lit up …
Everyone has their opinion.
The HOF gets a lot of things wrong. The writers get a lot of things wrong.
In 2006? The writers voted in Negro league players, executives, others, but no Buck O’Neil. It was egregious. And Buck spoke in Cooperstown upon his invite.
Pete would never be that gracious in a million years. Buck was magnanimous, Pete was not.
Pete and Paul Giammati, and MLB bent over backwards for Pete. He signed his own fate, and I guarantee the ugly stuff about Pete is likely NOTHING compared to the sealed reports that Pete never wanted public, probably lead to him gambling a LOT, on his team, against his team, young girls he was ****ing, the mob, bad bets, and he’s lucky he only went to prison for tax evasion.
That’s your hero?
Oh, and then he decides to live in Las Vegas and make every trip to Cooperstown and set up a table to autograph baseballs.
Dude is trash. But RIP
All true. BUT, he was an all time great at playing baseball. IMO, Pete belongs in the HOF - TRASH HUMAN and all.
He paid his dues in that now that he is gone, IF voted in, he will never know it.
I get the argument for banning him forever. I really don't care either way. Just giving my opinion on the matter. [Reply]
As long as Shoeless Joe Jackson stays out of the HoF because of the Black Sox Scandal, Pete Rose shouldn't even be considered.
And in my opinion, both of them being banned from the HoF in essence is part of the story of baseball due to the Black Sox Scandal and how baseball had to develop a hard-line "No leniency" stance against gambling. Neither of them should be in the Hall because of how baseball had to have that hard-line stance against gambling for the sanctity of the game due to such.
Remember: This isn't someone betting on other games, Pete Rose bet on his own games (This is 100% definitive). In no way is that okay, and is only amplified by the early history of baseball and that culture already developed within the league. He played in a league that held this stance. He knew the rules. This is the punishment. His legacy SHOULD be forever tarnished because of such, and this is how that's done. [Reply]
Originally Posted by kcgreene:
As long as Shoeless Joe Jackson stays out of the HoF because of the Black Sox Scandal, Pete Rose shouldn't even be considered.
And in my opinion, both of them being banned from the HoF in essence is part of the story of baseball due to the Black Sox Scandal and how baseball had to develop a hard-line "No leniency" stance against gambling. Neither of them should be in the Hall because of how baseball had to have that hard-line stance against gambling for the sanctity of the game due to such.
Remember: This isn't someone betting on other games, Pete Rose bet on his own games (This is 100% definitive). In no way is that okay, and is only amplified by the early history of baseball and that culture already developed within the league. He played in a league that held this stance. He knew the rules. This is the punishment. His legacy SHOULD be forever tarnished because of such, and this is how that's done.
Yeah, there is a clear hierarchy. Betting at all (Ridley), betting on your own sport, betting on your team to win, throwing games or purposefully tanking (Jontay porter). In that order.
Pete and shoeless Joe fall into that last category. Pete would unstack games he didn’t bet on to stack the games he bet on. Shoeless Joe tanked playoff games in high leverage situations and played like a hall of famer in situations that didn’t matter [Reply]
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
Shoeless Joe tanked playoff games in high leverage situations and played like a hall of famer in situations that didn’t matter
I'll never understand the argument that Shoeless Joe only did good when it didn't matter. You'll point to his RBI's in the final game after Lefty Williams blew the game in the top of the 1st because he and his family were threatened the day before. What AB was available to him to take when it mattered? [Reply]
Originally Posted by jd1020:
I'll never understand the argument that Shoeless Joe only did good when it didn't matter. You'll point to his RBI's in the final game after Lefty Williams blew the game in the top of the 1st because he and his family were threatened the day before. What AB was available to him to take when it mattered?
The ones where Chicago hadn't been paid and decided they were going to win.
The differences were stark. He knew when he could turn it on and when he couldn't.
No XBH with runners on until Game 8. A .545 BA with 6 RBI in the games where the players had abandoned the fix. 0-6 w/ RISP in games known to be fixed. In those games he hit .250 w/ zero RBI (until game 5 when he got his first RBI when they were down 10-1).
And again, he admitted he took money and admitted he threw games 2 and 3 in his grand jury testimony.
Was he the driving force behind the decision to throw games? No, I don't think so (that was almost certainly Gandil, Cicotte and Risberg). But was he their best player and did he participate in the fix? Oh absolutely and by his own admission.
Jackson got what he deserved. Buck Weaver might've gotten screwed. And at least Gandil, to his credit, took his medicine. He expressed remorse and conceded that they deserved to be banned. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
No baseball player is in Springsteen's league. In fact, Springsteen should be in the baseball hall of fame on pure principle.
No. The guy said "he can throw that speedball by you..."
Who the fuck calls a fastball a speedball? Fraud. [Reply]