 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ?
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ? From: Wesley S Date: 20 Jan 04 - 03:32 PM I figure the world is devided into three groups : Those that think Pete Rose belongs in the baseball hall of fame reguardless of his infractions, Those that think he shouldn't be inducted, And those that couldn't care less. How about you ? I vote no. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ? From: Raptor Date: 20 Jan 04 - 03:39 PM I figure The three groups that the world is grouped into are: Those that can count And those that can't Raptor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ? From: Rapparee Date: 20 Jan 04 - 03:44 PM Who gives a #@$!??? And I used to live across the river from Cincinnati, where they care. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ? From: Clinton Hammond Date: 20 Jan 04 - 03:47 PM I could care less, but that'd require effort... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ? From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 20 Jan 04 - 03:56 PM NO!!!!!!!! NO!!!!!!!! NO!!!!!!!! Pete Rose is a piece of trash. Let him rot. For those of you who don't care, why did you make the effort to read the thread when it is pretty clear what the subject is? How odd. The mind works in mysterious ways. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ? From: Clinton Hammond Date: 20 Jan 04 - 03:58 PM I didn't know what it was really about till I opend it... And then I was asked for my opinion... so I gave it, for what it was worht... wazzit matter to YOU RO? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ? From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 20 Jan 04 - 04:08 PM touchy touchy!!!! I had an opinion and an observation and I gave it too!!! I do apologize to overseas friends who have no idea who Pete Rose is. I can understand your not knowing Rose, and I envy you for that!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ? From: Alaska Mike Date: 20 Jan 04 - 04:21 PM As much as I enjoyed Pete Rose when he was playing, I would not even consider the lying, unrepentant b*****d for anything other than a prison uniform. If he goes in the Hall of Fame, I will never visit Cooperstown again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ? From: Sorcha Date: 20 Jan 04 - 04:52 PM I'm really in the don't care group, but NO. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 20 Jan 04 - 05:05 PM Yes. The gambling and the ego are not unique to Rose alone. I dare say a few others in the HOF have similar problems, they just weren't caught. And as corrupt as is that group of owners, it's all a pretty sorry story. Give the man his due for playing some good games. And this from a non-sports-fan. I don't watch baseball. (I do listen to Frank DeFord once in a while, and Stefan Fatsus (sp?) on NPR.) SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ? From: Cruiser Date: 20 Jan 04 - 05:14 PM No. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ? From: GUEST,Martin Gibson Date: 20 Jan 04 - 05:22 PM I am a big baseball fan and saw Rose play many times. He is one of the greatest ballplayers of all time and deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. Being an asshole is not a criteria to be denied. Ty Cobb was supposed to be a total jerk. He's there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ? From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 20 Jan 04 - 05:29 PM Cobb did not bet on baseball and then lie about it. Cobb was honest, even if he was dirty and a bigot. Rose knew the rules, broke it, and now he cries about it. Tough! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ? From: JedMarum Date: 20 Jan 04 - 05:30 PM absolutely no way! He broke the most fundamental rules of the game. He pays the ultimate price. Morality matters, Rules matter. I don't care how apologetic he may be (and he hasn't been) - he can never be allowed entry into the game's Hall of Fame without rendering useless the game's basic tenets. He was a good player, so what? He destroyed people's confidence in the sport - that is much more important. And what other players have done what he's done, SRS? If any have, they should be disqualified as well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ? From: pdq Date: 20 Jan 04 - 05:41 PM I am a life-long baseball fan and I cannot imagine cheering for my team, the Giants, and knowing that their players or their coaches could be betting aginst the team. If you want to know how good Pete Rose was, look in the statistics books. If you want to know who deserves your respect, go to Cooperstown. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ? From: Rapparee Date: 20 Jan 04 - 05:43 PM Any of the infamous "Black Sox" in the HOF? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ? From: Bill D Date: 20 Jan 04 - 05:55 PM Pete has his records, and his 'fame'...he will certainly never be forgotten..it is his own fault what he will be remembered longest for. Perhaps Cooperstown should build an annex called "Hall of Shame", with appropriate plaques explaining the inductees. No. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ? From: GUEST,Martin Gibson Date: 20 Jan 04 - 06:01 PM So being dirty and a bigot is better than being a liar? I'll remember that. Total pretzel logic. The Hall is for players who excelled regardless of their crimes. Rose never bet as a player. He should be inducted as a player. You can scowl at and spit on his placque if you want but it should be there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ? From: GUEST,Butch Date: 20 Jan 04 - 06:09 PM No way! He can cry all he wants, he tarnished the game, broke the rules and lied. End of story. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ? From: PoppaGator Date: 20 Jan 04 - 06:10 PM Rapaire: NO "Black Sox" are in the HOF. Shoeless Joe Jackson, the best of the bunch and big naive country boy (from what we're told) has been denied entrance only because he knew about his teammates' plot and didn't rat them out. His stellar performance in the 1919 series iindiates that he did *nothing* to throw any game. But, like they say, the good have to suffer with the bad in a case like that I hated Rose as a player, and only gradually developed a grudging admisration for his accomplishments. I think the comparison to Ty Cobb is very apt. Nevertheless, I would put him in the Hall of Fame if it was up to me. I'd put Joe Jackson in posthumously, too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ? From: freightdawg Date: 20 Jan 04 - 06:20 PM Absolutely not. I agree with several previous writers. Rose has his record, and it will never be taken away from him. Even if somebody eventually gets one more hit than he has, he will still be remembered as one of the games' greatest. The rule still stands though. Ever since the "Black Sox" it has been abundantly clear. Do not bet on baseball. Rose not only bet, he bet on his team. While other infractions (drugs, doping, etc,) may screw up your life, what gambling does is screw up the integrity of the game. He was caught and was banned for life. He plead innocent and lied about the whole sordid mess for 14 years. Then some schmuck told him all he had to do was get all weepy eyed and confess and his invitation to Cooperstown would be in the mail. Wrong. Have you heard or read what Hank Aaron said about him? He cheapened the game for the players, the fans, and everyone associated with the game. Yes, he was my favorite player when I was a young boy. But if the rules are changed for one corrupt, lying egomaniac how will baseball ever enforce the ban on future gamblers, those who might bet while playing. For the integrity of the game (which is seriously in jeapordy for other reasons) Rose has to be kept out. Freightdawg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ? From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 20 Jan 04 - 10:49 PM Sorry Martin, it is far from "pretzel logic". You twisted what I said and that is wrong. IF you take the time to read the Hall of Fame rules for election you will see that players who are on "Baseballs" ineligible list are not eligible for the Hall of Fame. Baseball's rules say that you can't bet on baseball. There they are, black and white. Not betting on baseball is the first rule they teach rookies. There are signs in clubhouses and on the field. Rose knowingly broke the rules. End of story. Cobb and others did not break any rules, at least that we know of. IF they were proven to have bet on the game, they would also fall in the same catagory that Rose did. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ? From: Walking Eagle Date: 20 Jan 04 - 11:05 PM Pete--no--from a dyed-in-the-wool die hard Reds fan. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ? From: Bobert Date: 20 Jan 04 - 11:22 PM Well danged! Pete Rose has been obn the outside of the "establishment" fir some time now and fir what? I'll tell you fir what... ...'cause he wouldn't *take* (as in baseball) a bung holing from the horney fellers that run baseball! That's the issue... Baseball ain't never been about kissin' butt. It's a nasty sport where supposedly honorable men go about spitting and touchin' oher guys butts. Think about it fir one danged minute, will ya? So now they wanta gang bang Pete Rose fitr betting on games? Did he bet on games in which he had any control of the outcome? Heck no, he didn't!!!! Yet this man, who has more hits than anyone who has ever played the friggin' game has been singled out fir a public butt whoppin'. What a rip! Come on, folks. You wanta find some bad guys then you don't have to look no further than the White House. Leave Pete alone unless, of course... ... you too suffer from polymorphorse perverse guilt... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ? From: GUEST,chin music Date: 20 Jan 04 - 11:58 PM In every clubhouse you'll find a warning against betting on baseball. One can be a lousy human being, and guilty of a multitude of sins, but betting on baseball is the one cardinal rule that is unforgiveable in the game. To be sure, Pete Rose is somewhat of a tragic figure, but he like all of us, he must take responsibilty for our own actions. As a player, there were lots of guys who had more natural ability, but very few had his determination and drive to succeed. If I were voting, I wouldn't let him into The Hall Of Fame. No man, despite his on field accomplishments, is above the game. Pete Rose hasn't felt any remorse for his past transgressions, but only remorse that he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. My suspicion is that Mr. Rose has never matured as a person, and if he does so before he passes on, he'll regret the fact that he didn't come to grips with his addiction. I could have more sympathy for him if he had done so. My guess is that he's still a compulsive gambler to this day, and has not earned the lesson, or the right to enter Copperstown. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ? From: GUEST,chin music Date: 21 Jan 04 - 12:14 AM My typing isn't great. I meant to say Cooperstown. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ? From: musicmick Date: 21 Jan 04 - 12:35 AM Pete Rose violated the one rule that msut be honored. As a manager, and able to affect the game, he bet on his and other teams. MLB can not afford to extend leniency on this issue. The fans must believe that the games are honest and unfixable, or baseball will have the standing of boxing and wrestling. That said, Pete Rose is more than qualified for enshrinement in the Hall of Fame for his accomplishments on the field. Like Shoeless Joe Jackson, his numbers deserve recognition. (Jackson's batting records have been discounted and expunged from the record books. He was made a non-person by Judge Landis. It's damn well time to put those numbers back where they belong). The obvious solution is to allow Pete's name on the ballot and to continue his ban from employment in MLB. Frankly, MLB has been hoping that Pete would own up to his baseball betting so the issue could be resolved just that way. As to disaproval of Pete Rose's character, it is not an issue. There are few saints in Cooperstown. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ? From: kendall Date: 21 Jan 04 - 06:59 AM I'm firmly in the "Dont give a shit" category. I'd rather watch cans rust than baseball. I am curious, what are the criteria for being in the hall of fame? Apparently being an outstanding player is not enough. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ? From: Janie Date: 21 Jan 04 - 08:11 AM No, no, no...!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ? From: Greg F. Date: 21 Jan 04 - 08:25 AM "Copperstown" should be the name. I used to live there. The Hall of Fame is a political institution and who gets in and who doesn't is primarily a political decision. As far as Mr. Rose: I could not care less. A grown man being paid obscene amounts of money to play a boys game. Like it matters? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ? From: Kim C Date: 21 Jan 04 - 08:32 AM Nope. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ? From: Raptor Date: 21 Jan 04 - 09:27 AM I want some of the drugs you people are on! Everybody bets on baseball, Some people bet on everything! You are talking like baseball is pure and unencumbered by anthing that is not wholesome. Like no baseball player has never Drank and drove. No baseball player has ever killed his teammates in a drunken boating accident! No baseball player has ever raped somebody. No baseball player ever beat the shit out of his kids, or sexually abused his kids. Once a person becomes a baseball player they become a saint! Is Cooperstown a church? Pete Rose was one of the greatest players of all time! Who better to have in the hall of fame? Unless you want to fill it with only the players who go to church and donate all of thier saleries to charity, and spend the off season hand feeding the poor in some far off destitute country! O Yeah that doesn't happen cause baseball players arn't all saints! Some, if not most are money grubbing aholes who don't give a shit about the fans, and only want to be on the team that will pay them the most MONEY! Raptor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ? From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 21 Jan 04 - 09:55 AM Chill Raptor!! "Everybody bets on baseball"? Hardly. Of course all ballplayers aren't saints. Few are. This is a question of someone willing breaking a rule, knowing full well the consequences. You, and others, have made good points about ballyplayers being in it for the money. Regardless of that problem, which I think has ruined the game, that is not the issue with Rose. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ? From: Kim C Date: 21 Jan 04 - 10:25 AM I was all for him being in the HOF, until he admitted to betting on baseball while he was a manager. That just don't seem right to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ? From: Peace Date: 21 Jan 04 - 10:47 AM In a class recently, we were on the topic of social justice. One of the students asked if I had any sports heroes. I said no. I had to think for a few minutes to explain why. It had to do with a television commercial and an athlete who made millions per year for bouncing a ball, and ten-year-old kids working in a sweat shop to make the shoes this guy was advertising. Sorry folks, but if I could care less about athletes and halls of fame, frankly, I don't know how. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ? From: GUEST,Hugh Jampton Date: 21 Jan 04 - 10:54 AM We have had similar instances here in football. A certain Mr. Grobbelar, goalkeeper, was filmed, bang to rights, accepting money in an envelope from people anxious to influence the result of games. Result:-"NOT GUILTY" What are we like!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ? From: Pseudolus Date: 21 Jan 04 - 11:09 AM One important note, the rule that says you can't be in the hall of fame if you are on the ineligible list was added AFTER the Pete Rose incident hit the fan. It could very easily be called the Pete Rose rule. One other note. In ALL of the evidence of Pete betting on baseball, there was NO evidence that he bet against his own team. That fact is admitted by all of the baseball powers that be. It's odd to me that Rose is being dealt with this strictly and by the book and the Daryl Strawberry's of the world are continuously given 2nd, 3rd and 4th chances. In my opinion a corked bat (Sosa fans) and a steroid enduced 70 home run season (McGuire fans) taint this game a lot more than a manager betting on his own team to win a game. There's a lot more "dirt" in the Hall of Fame than Pete Rose could ever add. Make no mistake about it, Pete Rose's continued ban from baseball today is NOT because he bet on baseball. He continues to be banned because he lied and because of his arrogance. If he is re-instated, it will not taint the game or the Hall. The man's accomplishments are simply unbelievable as a player. To keep him out of the hall of fame because of what he did AFTER his playing career was over is just ridiculous and to me represents nothing more than a macho power play by the big guns in baseball. Oh, yeah, by the way, I vote yes....... Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 21 Jan 04 - 11:18 AM The Hall of Fame selection is made by sports writers, but players are nominated by fans once they meet a set of criteria, is my understanding of the process. I agree with Raptor. Ever read Malamud's "The Natural?" Not see the movie--read the story. It doesn't have a happy ending that Redford tacked on. Sports isn't filled with wise and/or highly educated and highly moral people, it is filled with people who are good athletes who often cut short their education in order to grab that brass ring of wealth and fame via sports. There are some remarkable exceptions to this, of course, and they're the ones who set a standard that few others can follow but the public seems to see through rose-colored glasses as the template for all athletes. As a whole, athletes are probably MORE vulnerable to those human frailties that Rose displayed than many other groups. I cringe every time I hear of a talented young high school athlete signing a multi-million dollar contract, his mother at his side. Money and fame are corrosive influences when bestowed in that way on the very young. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ? From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 21 Jan 04 - 11:31 AM No, I don't think the fans have any say in the Hall of Fame process. Of course, public opinion enters into the sportswriters choice. I'm not sure about Frank's statment that the "ineligibility rule" was added after the Rose incident. Shoeless Joe Jackson's supporters had tried for years to get him re-instated to get in the Hall. Strawberry, Sosa and even McGuire's issues did not make them ineligeable to work in baseball. If you are looking to change the rule to include drug abuse, corked bats and steroids to be added to the reason for making a palyer "ineligable", go for it. The fact remains that the rule AND the contract that Rose signed forbid him from betting on baseball. Period. If the use of steroids, cocaine or a corked bat are included in the contract then the others you mentioned should also be banned - IF THAT IS WHAT THE RULES SAY. You sign a contract and you abide by it. You don't try to change the rules AFTER. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ? From: Charley Noble Date: 21 Jan 04 - 12:43 PM No, but I would support a nomination of Pete Rose for Tank McNamara's "2003 Sport's Jerk of the Year" award. If you'd also like to support this nomination, send an e-mail to:sjy2003@tankmcnarra.com Remember, Pete, any publicity for you at this point in your career is good, and will be bound to increase your book sales. Cheerily, Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ? From: Raptor Date: 21 Jan 04 - 01:45 PM You guys are right! Becomming the home run champ by cheeting and using a non- regulation bat is fine! And cheeting by using ability enhancing drugs is fine! And letting kids know that even pro athleates can do coke and still play and be a role model is fine! But for F**ks sake don't put a wager on the outcome of a game cuz that would cause the fans to doubt the honor and integrity of the game. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ? From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 21 Jan 04 - 01:52 PM Raptor, you must be reading something between the lines because I don't think ANY of us said that cheating or using drugs is fine. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ? From: Kim C Date: 21 Jan 04 - 01:54 PM Well, Raptor, I for one don't agree that any of those things are fine. I don't understand why Strawberry wasn't given the boot years ago. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ? From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 21 Jan 04 - 02:02 PM The reason why drugs are accepted in sports is that the unions have made it so. Issues with random drug testing and penalities have been brought into contact discussion and soundly voted down by the members of the unions. The performance enhancing drugs that have been used were legal. Again, the union would not permit their banishment. This is not a case about ethics or character. It is about the rules. I do agree that ethics and character should also play a role. Time will tell if either Sosa or McGwire get elected to the Hall. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ? From: Raptor Date: 21 Jan 04 - 02:06 PM Ron I'm just saying the Rose's offence was not as bad as some stuff that happens everyday! Not that you agree with it! Respectfully Raptor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ? From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 21 Jan 04 - 02:33 PM Raptor, I'm not sure if I agree or not. I find it hard to compare vices. On one hand I abhor the use of drugs and performance enhancers. A corked bat is wrong. So it betting on the game that you are playing. They all speak to integrity. Each of those issues ruin the game that I grew up loving. However, the one issue, and please excuse me if I sound like a lawyer, is that the contract Rose signed SPECIFICALLY prohibited betting. The reprecussions were spelled out. You know the saying if you can't do the time, don't do the crime? Well, in this case Rose new full well what could happen. He was caught, and now he whines that he is being mistreated. If you or I were warned that we would lose our job, pension, etc. if we broke a rule that we agreed to honor, we would be out of luck. Why does Rose deserve special privalage? Raptor, I respect your opinion and I do agree that all of these issues bring sports into an ill light. Sports=entertainment. I consider sports to be an art that serves a great importance in our lives. Art & Sports enrich our lives and give us life lessons. Having individuals like Rose, Strawberry, Sosa & the rest are part of life. Reprecussion and responsiblity is too. Nobody gets a free ride. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ? From: Pseudolus Date: 21 Jan 04 - 04:36 PM I watched the "Beyond the Glory" show on ESPN the other night and it was about Pete Rose. It was on that show that they said that the rule forbidding a player from entering the Hall of Fame happened AFTER the Rose incident. I'm not claiming that because I heard it on ESPN it must be true but I've never known that particular show to be wrong before so for myself, I'm willing to believe it to be true. The rule that Pete broke also allows for him to apply for reinstatement after one year. Re-instating him would NOT be breaking a rule. I've read in this thread that he should be in the Hall of Shame. Yep, SHAME on Pete for getting over 4000 hits in his career, SHAME on Pete for winning three World Series and SHAME on Pete for being one of the greatest baseball players of all time. Betting on baseball was WRONG and lying about it was WRONG but it doesn't change what he did as a PLAYER. I understand that an apology doesn't change that he bet on baseball, but betting on baseball doesn't change that Pete Rose was one of the most influential baseball players in the history of baseball. My point earlier was that a player that corks his bat or uses artificial enhancements taints the game a lot more than someone who bets on his OWN team. My opinion on this would be a lot different if he had bet against his own team but he didn't. I'm sure if he did and it could be proven, MLB would be all over that one. My vote would be to allow Pete back into baseball again as a manager but I can understand the logic behind not letting him manage a team again because he did in fact break the rule. But the logic behind not letting him in the Hall of Fame because of actions taken after he stopped playing the game is just wrong. It not only hurts Rose, but it hurts all baseball fans who grew up learning the game by watching him..... Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 21 Jan 04 - 04:55 PM I went looking for the rules. Maybe it is the football HOF that has limited fan participation. Here are the Baseball HOF rules (from here). Rules for Election to the National Baseball Hall of Fame by Members of the Baseball Writers' Association of America (BBWAA) 1. Authorization — By authorization of the Board of Directors of the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, Inc., the Baseball Writers' Association of America (BBWAA) is authorized to hold an election every year for the purpose of electing members to the National Baseball Hall of Fame from the ranks of retired baseball players. 2. Electors — Only active and honorary members of the Baseball Writers' Association of America, who have been active baseball writers for at least ten (10) years, shall be eligible to vote. They must have been active as baseball writers and members of the Association for a period beginning at least ten (10) years prior to the date of election in which they are voting. 3. Eligible Candidates — Candidates to be eligible must meet the following requirements:
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). 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. 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. Any player on Baseball's ineligible list shall not be an eligible candidate. 4. Method of Election BBWAA Screening Committee — A Screening Committee consisting of baseball writers will be appointed by the BBWAA. This Screening Committee shall consist of six members, with two members to be elected at each Annual Meeting for a three-year term. The duty of the Screening Committee shall be to prepare a ballot listing in alphabetical order eligible candidates who (1) received a vote on a minimum of five percent (5%) of the ballots cast in the preceding election or (2) are eligible for the first time and are nominated by any two of the six members of the BBWAA Screening Committee. An elector will vote for no more than ten (10) eligible candidates deemed worthy of election. Write-in votes are not permitted. Any candidate receiving votes on seventy-five percent (75%) of the ballots cast shall be elected to membership in the National Baseball Hall of Fame. 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. 6. Automatic Elections — No automatic elections based on performances such as a batting average of .400 or more for one (1) year, pitching a perfect game or similar outstanding achievement shall be permitted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ? From: Charley Noble Date: 21 Jan 04 - 05:07 PM By his actions Rose hurt himself and all those who considered him a role model. He has himself to blame, and anyone else who told him he could get away with it. Sure he had an impressive record as a player and a manager but in my opinion all of that is undercut by his gambling and his lies. "Sports Jerk of the Year 2003" sums it up for me. "Hall of Shame" I'm not so sure about. His book is selling quite well and he should be able to console himself with the royalties. Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ? From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 21 Jan 04 - 05:32 PM Frank - Rose did not "stop" playing the game when he was managing. If anything, it is more of a problem since he could easily sway the direction of a game as a manager. Starting a pitcher he knows isn't rested, manuevering the lineup, etc. All these decisions could change the outcome of the game. Additionally, managers also make the Hall of Fame. The fact remains the same, he knew the consequences and broke the rules. He is out. |
