- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Pete Rose: In the HOF or Out
Posted on 6/23/15 at 1:49 pm to Byron Bojangles III
Posted on 6/23/15 at 1:49 pm to Byron Bojangles III
quote:
The HoF is for achievements on the field not how you live your life off the field
You seem to be confused as to the BBWAA Election Rules to the Baseball Hall of Fame.
https://baseballhall.org/hall-of-famers/bbwaa-rules-for-election
quote:
3. Eligible Candidates -- Candidates to be eligible must meet the following requirements:
A. A baseball player must have been active as a player in the Major Leagues at some time during a period beginning fifteen (15) years before and ending five (5) years prior to election.
B. Player must have played in each of ten (10) Major League championship seasons, some part of which must have been within the period described in 3(A).
C. Player shall have ceased to be an active player in the Major Leagues at least five (5) calendar years preceding the election but may be otherwise connected with baseball.
D. In case of the death of an active player or a player who has been retired for less than five (5) full years, a candidate who is otherwise eligible shall be eligible in the next regular election held at least six (6) months after the date of death or after the end of the five (5) year period, whichever occurs first.
E. Any player on Baseball's ineligible list shall not be an eligible candidate.
quote:
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.
Educate yourself and you won't look so ignorant next time.
1
Posted on 6/23/15 at 1:49 pm to outlawjoseywales
quote:
He blew at least 13 saves or he would not have an 8-5 record.
1. You can earn a win without blowing a save. There were plenty of times that he came into a game with the score tied.
2. He blew 9 saves that season, for the record.
Posted on 6/23/15 at 1:49 pm to reddman
quote:
You keep blabbing about second/third chances
I am not blabbing sir I just would rather have a "liar" in the HOF than a drunk, drug head, wive beater, or a murderer. A liar is a higher class of person then those jackasses !!!
Posted on 6/23/15 at 1:51 pm to beatbammer
He still deserves to be in
Posted on 6/23/15 at 1:57 pm to reddman
quote:
You can earn a win without blowing a save
This is true but Franco blew 9 saves so he was not automatic. Franco never had more than 40 saves in a year. His best year was the next year, 1988, with 39. Maybe Pete new his players better than we did and he knew Franco needed a day off now and then. Who knows.
Posted on 6/23/15 at 1:57 pm to outlawjoseywales
quote:
One big problem with your scenario. He puts a different player in and he cannot get the save. Who says the reliever he saves for the next game comes in and gets the save?? A good reliever blows 5-7 saves a year. There are no guarantees with bullpens. 1987 the Reds closer was a 26 year old John Franco. 32 saves and a 8-5 record. He blew at least 13 saves or he would not have an 8-5 record. He did not start any games. Pitched in 68 games and a total of 82 innings. So there was no long relieve games for Mr. Franco. He was not yet the dominant closer he became.
Completely missed the point.
Posted on 6/23/15 at 1:58 pm to Byron Bojangles III
quote:
by Byron Bojangles III
So by this standard can we take O.J. out of the HoF
Well, there is a pro football equivalent to Pete Rose but it's not OJ. It's Paul Hornung who bet on football games while he was playing. Difference is he fessed up to what he did immediately, seemed contrite, and took actions to solve his gambling problem. In other words, basically the opposite of everything Pete Rose did.
Posted on 6/23/15 at 1:59 pm to Byron Bojangles III
quote:
He still deserves to be in
So you want to break the rules.
Just like ol' Pete.
Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!
Posted on 6/23/15 at 2:02 pm to Bench McElroy
quote:
Well, there is a pro football equivalent to Pete Rose but it's not OJ. It's Paul Hornung who bet on football games while he was playing. Difference is he fessed up to what he did immediately, seemed contrite, and took actions to solve his gambling problem. In other words, basically the opposite of everything Pete Rose did.
The NFL has also never had a rule that imposed a life-time ban on any players or coaches involved with gambling on the game.
The ones that were caught were suspended as per NFL rules. No lifetime ban because the NFL didn't/doesn't require that.
Unfortunately for Rose, MLB *does*. The rule is there and it has existed since the Black Sox scandal. Every player, manager, coach, GM, and exec knows about it.
This post was edited on 6/23/15 at 2:03 pm
Posted on 6/23/15 at 2:06 pm to outlawjoseywales
quote:
He blew at least 13 saves or he would not have an 8-5 record.
Your Mom should have blown one more cock so you wouldn't be on record.
Posted on 6/23/15 at 2:14 pm to Vandyrone
quote:
Completely missed the point.
I did not miss the point. Your point was to play the best player everytime.
I grew up watching Cardinal baseball. Whitey Herzog would bring a pitcher in, the pitcher he replaced would go to right field, the right fielder would be out of the game. The pitcher he brought in would pitch to one batter. Then Whitey would bring the pitcher from right field back to pitch and replace him in the outfield with another outfielder. Why the frack would anyone do that?!?!? Because Whitey was a matchup king. The pitcher he had on the mound was not a good match up for the next batter but he was a good match up for the rest of the batting order. He did not want to take his pitcher out late in the game for just one batter.
Sometimes the matchup is the key and not the best pitcher you have. Pete saw what Whitey was doing and could have done matchups.
Posted on 6/23/15 at 2:23 pm to outlawjoseywales
quote:
I did not miss the point. Your point was to play the best player everytime.
Nope. Not even close. My point was that his bias as it related to whether or not he bet on his team that day affected his managing decisions. When you're down $20K for the week and your "connected" bookie is breathing down your neck, you are going to manage the games you have money on differently than the ones you don't.
Posted on 6/23/15 at 2:24 pm to PurpleandGeauld
quote:
MANY (most?) of the HOFers would fail drug testing in its current form. If you don't think some of those "heroes of old" weren't doing some form of PED's you are just being silly.
Of course they were
There are dudes cheating right now.
But so what if other cheaters are in the HOF that didn't get caught.
My old HS football coach always said if you dont draw a flag its not a penalty. Well... If you got caught cheating and somebody else didnt? Too bad, so sad. Thems the breaks.
This post was edited on 6/23/15 at 2:25 pm
Posted on 6/23/15 at 2:26 pm to outlawjoseywales
No, Banned for life.
Posted on 6/23/15 at 3:23 pm to Vandyrone
quote:
Nope. Not even close. My point was that his bias as it related to whether or not he bet on his team that day affected his managing decisions. When you're down $20K for the week and your "connected" bookie is breathing down your neck, you are going to manage the games you have money on differently than the ones you don't.
True. But a bookie does not want to "hurt" a high profile client such as Pete. Plus one of the problems a gambler who bet like Pete did is they always think they will always win big. " 20,000 down no big problem I am going to win 30,000 next week and minus the vig be up 7500"
Posted on 6/23/15 at 3:27 pm to outlawjoseywales
quote:
True.
Posted on 6/23/15 at 3:36 pm to outlawjoseywales
It doesn't really matter who he bet on or if it affected the outcomes of any of his games. Players, coaches, execs, etc. betting on sports is probably the worst possible sin in the eyes of the leagues. It's the first rule they tell you. Nothing clouds the integrity of a game more than its participants having a gambling interest in it. If the fans can't trust the games themselves, the leagues are in trouble.
Pete Rose broke that rule. Let him serve as an example to everybody else. His accomplishments are outweighed by his disrespect for the game in the eyes of MLB and the Hall of Fame, as they must be.
Pete Rose broke that rule. Let him serve as an example to everybody else. His accomplishments are outweighed by his disrespect for the game in the eyes of MLB and the Hall of Fame, as they must be.
This post was edited on 6/23/15 at 3:37 pm
Posted on 6/23/15 at 3:40 pm to outlawjoseywales
quote:
I am not blabbing sir I just would rather have a "liar" in the HOF than a drunk, drug head, wive beater, or a murderer. A liar is a higher class of person then those jackasses !!!
Good lord.
Posted on 6/23/15 at 4:08 pm to outlawjoseywales
He should be in. But I also think it should only be about what happens on the field.
Posted on 6/23/15 at 5:21 pm to Pelican fan99
In In In.
I don't care that he bet on baseball. He broke the all time hit record legitimately, without the help of PEDs.
Steroid use is far worse than betting on baseball.
I don't care that he bet on baseball. He broke the all time hit record legitimately, without the help of PEDs.
Steroid use is far worse than betting on baseball.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News