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:[e-mail]

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:

A baseball player must have been active as a player in the Major Leagues at some time during a period beginning twenty (20) years before and ending five (5) years prior to election.
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.

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ?
From: freightdawg
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 06:11 PM

Thanks Ron, I was just about to add that including Rose in the Hall would ultimately be a statement of his entire career. As noted above, the standards for inclusion are one's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to his teams. Rose makes it on three, and looses it on three. His record, playing ability and contributions to his teams are monumental and cannot be argued. However, he has no integrity - he lied for 14 years about betting. His character is entirely suspect as he vehemently denies that he continues to have a betting problem even though he regularly gambles on horses and at least until a few years ago, at casinos. And who is to say he did not affect the game while he was betting? Managers make a thousand decisions, any one of which could vary the outcome of a game. There goes sportsmanship

And just an aside to the other issues raised, I firmly believe that if it is ever determined that a player achieved any milestone with the benefit of performance enhancing drugs, steriods, etc., they too should be banned from the HOF. There are a lot of honest Joes out there who deserve our admiration. If the fans would make a statement about drug and steroid use, the unions would not have to.

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ?
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 06:14 PM

No, Ron, the reason that drugs are accepted is that the fans look the other way, and the OWNERS look the other way because doing anything meaningful about it would cut into profits. Blaming the unions is just a cheap shot.

Its perfectly OK for these "athletes" to use illegal drugs, but you better put that poor Black kid from off the streets in jail for life for two grams of coke. Right.

One more example of why "professional" "sport"- just another corporate enterprise- is utter bullshit today.

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 09:58 PM

Greg, What I said about the unions and drug testing is far from a "cheap shot". I do agree with you that fans have a tendancy to look the other way, but the unions HAVE stopped several attempts at drug testing in sports. I am not supporting drug testing, I think it is an invasion of privacy. I am merely telling you what the history has been. I do support unions, but I think the facts have to speak for themselves.   Baseball will not punish players as long as the Players Union opposes it.

The Major League Baseball Players Union has stopped several attempts for drug testing. The collective bargaining agreement has only been able to come up with a slap on the wrist for steroid use, and that was implemented last year and is valid only through the 2004 season. A first positive test for steroid use would result in treatment and a second in a 15-day suspension or fine of up to $10,000 US. For these players, that is pocket change. The contract increases that they make for increasing their numbers more than justifies the possible fine. Unfortunately the player doesn't stop to think about what it is doing to their health.

A union is supposed to protect and help it's members. It is supposed to provide care and treatment and insure their members working environment is a safe one. The Players Union is a joke and they should be ashamed to call themselves a union.

I do agree with everything else you said. Baseball has been ruined for me over the years because of the high salaries, the strikes, the turning the other cheek with issues like these, and the high cost to the fan.

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ?
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 08:50 AM

Hey, Ron-

Allow me to back off the "cheap shot" statement with apologies- I'm admittedly hypersensitive due to the current craze of blaming everything that's wrong with anything on "unions".

Still, I contend that while the Ballplayer's Union may be a PART of the problem, the Union's role is dwarfed by that of management/owners and of the fans.

And it ain't just baseball that's been ruined- its most if not all of professional sport.

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 09:35 AM

I agree with you Greg, and it is organizations like the Players Unions that give unions such a bad name.

Yes, the Players Union (which I like to refer to as PU for short)is only PART of the problem, but I have to contend that it is the major part of the issue. ALL other major sports have been able introduce testing and stiffer penalties than the pathetic attempt that MLB and the PU have come up with. Fans could care less if the players are tested or not. Major League Baseball has tried repeatedly to introduce testing and stiffer penalties. It is actually in the best interest of the owners to protect themselves from lawsuits and having to pay salaries to players who aren't cutting it due to drug issues. The Players Union continues to fight it. Penalties and fines are contractually agreed upon. The steroid testing with the slap on the wrist is the best they could come up with.

Maybe the Players Union is an example of what a strong union can be, but I think the message that it sends is one of an out of control organization. The idea of what a union should be and can do gets clouded in peoples mind, and I believe it contributes to the declining membership in unions today. My grandfathers were coal miners and I grew up knowing how important a union can be. The youth of today see unions like the Players Union in the news and opinions get formed.

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ?
From: Pseudolus
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 03:05 PM

So I'm assuming Freightdog that when the time comes, you would oppose Sammy sosa's induction into the Hall. A player with corked bats would certainly miss out on three of the six criteria to make it...as would Gaylord Perry and many others that are currently in the Hall. I keep hearing that the bottom line is that he broke the rules, well, so did all those other guys I mentioned.

I agree, a manager has the ability to influence the outcome of a game. But Rose bet ON HIS TEAM. I agree it's still against the rules but you can't use the argument that what he did was wrong because as a manager he could influence the outcome.

People who have strong opinions on this issue will probably never change their minds so I think I need to move to the "agree to disagree" camp. I just feel so strongly about this because I believe that there are people in major league baseball that have been treated far less severely and I think that their actions had a much more direct impact on the game and the record books, and they will all eventually end up in the Hall of Fame if they aren't already there.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 03:51 PM

Frank, the "other guys" who broke the rules also received the punishment that was on the book for their particular offense. You can argue that the punishment may not fit the crime, but that is a whole different story.   You and I are not the judge when it comes to handing out punishment. The FACT remains, MLB and the Players have a contract that both parties sign. Through collective bargaining, both parties have agreed upon the rules and each INDIVIDUAL signs the agreements. You live with it, or try to change it. Unfortunately you can't change the past.

Rose knowingly broke the following rule, which is on display in every clubhouse:

Rule 21(d):
BETTING ON BALL GAMES. Any player, umpire, or club official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform shall be declared ineligible for one year.
Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.

As it stands, Rose knew the consequence of his actions. Additionally, he signed an agreement with Bart Giammatti that acknowledged he ACCEPTED his lifetime banishment from baseball. Whether he had bad lawyers or was too stupid to read the agreement, he had the nerve to say later that he thought he could be re-instated.

You are right Frank, people will have one opinion or the other. While I am dumbfounded that people can't see the logic and understand why he is banned, I do understand that the passion people have for the man.   No one likes to see an idol with feet of clay. We all want to remember those moments from our youth and forget their indescretions.

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ?
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 05:35 PM

My daughter and I were big Reds fans for years but I lost a good deal of respect for Rose when he told a reporter that he had "never finished a book" - and he wasn't talking about writing it.

I don't understand the 'Hall of Fame' distinction. No matter whether or not he is ever listed in it, he will never lose his record of accomplishments. Why not start a list such as that? Name it something else entirely - there will be a good many players on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ?
From: freightdawg
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 05:41 PM

Frank (Pseudolus),

No, I would not ban Sammy Sosa for using a corked bat once. If, however, it was determined that each and every home run was the result of a corked bat, then yes, I would like to see a pretty major response.

Performance enhancing drugs, steroids, etc., are another story. The essence of sport is one human competing to the very best of his/her ability against an opponent, whether than opponent be the clock, another person or just him/herself. A drug that is designed to artificially build stamina, strength, muscle tone or muscle speed should not just be frowned on, they should be banned. They move human achievement into the area of science, where only the rich will survive (I am speaking of all sports, even the "poor" ones, not just baseball. You see this in the Olympic area, where even cold medicines are illegal.) And then there are the residual effects - of 10, 11, 12, 13 year old boys and girls taking drugs that will destroy their bodies just because they think they need to in order to hit 70 home runs or complete a quadruple jump. Is banning such a user from their respective HOF drastic? Yes, and maybe over the top. It certainly will never happen. But I want to know when my favorite player pops one out of the park it was not the result of a juiced ball, a corked bat, or some chemist's laboratory.

Freightdawg

[p.s. that's "dawg." No self-respecting, flea-bitten, mangy old hound mutt would ever accept being refered to as a simple "dog."
;-) ]

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ?
From: musicmick
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 02:10 AM

What on earth is this obsession with drug use? Why should we care what the hell atheletes or entertainers or just plain folks smoke, drink, chew or swallow? We have a right to require sufficiant sobriety for competent performance from our employees and those entrusted with our safety (Bus drivers, airline pilots, etc) and our security (Police, soldiers, crossing guards). If a basketball player does a line or two, as long as he plays up to par, let's keep our noses out of his nose. Sammy Sosa hit a lot of homers after his suspension was lifted. He says he didn't use the cork all those seasons he was hitting 60+, and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. Pete Rose's "punishment" is not a maral judgement. MLB had no choice. Without the Draconian penalty for betting on games, the integrety of the sport is endangered. I am sure that the last thing that Bart Giometti, a rabid fan, wanted to do was to ban one of his all time heros. He bent over backwards to give Pete a way out. Pete was too stubborn and too stupid to take it. I still feel that Pete's records belong in the Hall, and I see no threat to the game if his plaque is added to the wall, alongside of "Shoeless" Joe Jackson's.
Of course, Pete Rose can never be allowed to work in baseball. He has, surely, forfieted that right.

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ?
From: GUEST,James
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 09:49 AM

No, he gambled, he lied, he whined, he begged, he got what he deserved. Also, being a hustler has more than one meaning Charlies...you blew it.

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ?
From: Pseudolus
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 10:53 AM

OK, maybe we're not so far apart here. I agree with the rules thing. The punishment given was the punishment advertised in all cases, and I have no issue with that. I guess that my real gripe is that major league baseball is coming away from this entirely too clean. They can sound as squeaky clean as they want to but if there was a big buck to be made by re-instating Rose, it would have happened a long time ago. So Ron, I guess you're right, I have more of an issue with the rule than with the application of the rule. Perhaps the Hall of Fame could be best served to allow Pete in, but let him in by telling the whole story, warts and all. In any case I believe he belongs in the Hall of Fame even if he doesn't belong in baseball again.

And musicmic, I think stars of sports teams become (rightly or wrongly) role models for our kids. In that case, what's up their nose IS gonna be important to us. And if you are into the sport itself, you should definitely be concerned with drugs that enhance your performance, shouldn't ya?

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 11:47 AM

Frank, Rose's stats have not been erased, and his contributions are on display in the Hall of Fame. The only problem is, he won't get a plaque. His statistics won't get an * like Roger Maris had for so many years. The results of his playing days will remain in the record books.

I guess all of us like to be recongized for the work we do, and for a ballplayer the Hall of Fame is the ultimate recognition. However, the work that Rose put in to build his career can't be erased by the lack of a plaque. It is unfortunate that his arrogant disregard for the rules and problems with gambling led him to this point.

I personally think the rules they have created are fair in terms of gambling. If you look at the history of baseball, the 1919 White Sox scandal brought the issue to a head. Owners had treated the playes like dirt, giving them low salaries and poor working conditions. Sure there were stars, but even they had issues. Gambling was a way for the underpaid ballplayer to make a few bucks. It was relatively easy for gamblers to get access to the players which resulted in the World Series getting thrown. That wasn't a rumor, it happened. The owners then created the office of the commissioner and gave the commish extraordiary powers to clean up the game. It took 70 years for the owners to get their power back and create a puppet office for the commissioner.

You are right Frank, MLB should not be considered "clean". The owners have been the ones that have ruined this game. They worry more about their ledgers and less about their fans. You can't take a family to a ballgame without laying out money that could be used for a weeks vacation in some places. The series games are played late in the evening to please television, and the young fans get shut out. The fans are shut out at the ballpark during the World Series when 80% of the tickets are given to the league and network sponsors.   The players are no better. I think in the case of baseball we have two evils that deserve each other.

Sorry for all the thread drift, but the simple question that started this thread has a great deal of subtext underneath.

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ?
From: musicmick
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 06:33 PM

No Frank, I have to agree with Charles Barkley on this one. Why on earth should athletes be held to a higher standard of behavior than musicians? Rock stars are at least as influential as baseball players.
The stars of today are no less moral or clean living than the stars of fifty years ago. It is just that the press has become one extended National Enquirer and everything is reported and distorted. Parents are, or should be, the role models for their kids. But parents have abdicated this responsability and passed it on to teachers and celebraties. We have all become a society of "Do what I say, not what I do" adults. If your kids are more influenced by a baseball players behavior than by yours, you need to rethink your parenting skills.

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 08:02 PM

Musicmic, that is a helluva jump to equate someone having a hero as a result of a bad parent. My parents raised me well and I always followed their example and looked up to them. While they were and still are my heros, I still had others - ballplayers like Tom Seaver and Ron Swoboda and astronauts like John Glenn.

I guess what you point out is really what is wrong with society. Everyone is out for themselves. Ballplayers and celbs only have to worry about themselves and damn everyone else. Politicians can steal people's money and it is okay. So what if a priest if pedophile, as long as they know how to run a mass.

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with parents abdicating their skills, and it is a weak excuse to blame them. Just shovel the blame to someone else, very nice.

Sorry, there is responsiblity on all parties.

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 11:25 PM

Musicmic, before you say anything - I would like to apologize for what could be perceived as the negative tone of my last post. You certainly added a legitimate gripe, and I was wrong to take such a negative tone. My apolgies, it was not meant to be personal.

I do think that heroes have a very important place, and they do not replace parents involvment in their childs life. It is wrong to assume that just because a kid wants to have a ballplayer as a hero that there parents are doing something wrong. Kids need plenty of heroes.   

There SHOULD be a certain amount of consideration as to why a ballplayer gets paid lots of money. The idea of putting together a professional team is to entertain fans. Professional atheletes do differ from musicians and other artists because of the factor of competition. Sports can be a metaphor for life and how we win and how we play the game SHOULD be considerations.   Winning at any cost should not be the way to win a game, nor should it be the example we set.

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ?
From: musicmick
Date: 24 Jan 04 - 01:19 AM

Ron, whether we like it or not, monetary reward is our society's coin of the realm. And while we're at it, I would suggest that ballplayers, entertainers, businessmen and workers all get the same pay; as much as they can. Pete Rose and Le Bron james got their best deal. So does my wife's teachers union. I might add that, no matter how much those super stars are being paid, they are making more money for their employers. So, let's get off their backs or lets stop the press from reporting every scrape they get into. That's how those pristine heros of our youth stayed so squeaky clean.
I find it easier to accept the insane salaries paid in sports by remembering that these players are professional entertainers and are generating more than enough to justify their wages.

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 24 Jan 04 - 09:07 AM

Musicmic, I don't think giving everyone the same pay is ever fair. While setting guidelines and base salaries are important, adding performance incentives is a proven factor in improving overall team performance, not only in sports but in all walks of life - including teachers.

I do agree that the media is too concerned about every tiny problem of celebritites. Big headlines yesterday about Art Garfunkel being arrested for marijuana possesion - a hugh $100 fine. Big deal.   However, the old guard of journalism was very repressed in reporting MAJOR stories and in many cases were simply extensions of the PR machine. Let's find the truth.

As for players generating huge salaries, I never said that they shouldn't get top dollar.   What I do feel is that they need to be aware of their market. You do reach a point where you outprice yourself and end up ruining the gig. Baseball, and most sports,are in real danger of doing just that. Football has probably been the one sport that marketed themselves correctly, and why I will begrudingly say they are not the national pastime. While ticket prices are exorbitant, they have managed to turn Sunday afternoons into a ritual that can be enjoyed outside of the stadium. You can't really say that about baseball. Superbowl Sunday is an unofficial national holiday that is celebrated in homes across the nation. It keeps the sport affordable to the average fan (by that I mean people who watch only on the tube) yet still manages to generate huge revenues for all parties.

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ?
From: musicmick
Date: 24 Jan 04 - 09:03 PM

Hi Ron,

Actually, Baseball is much more affordable in terms of ticket prices and availability. I do agree that the NFL and the NBA are more interesting spectacles because their salary caps keep the teams competitive. When the Yankees, with their huge TV revenues, can spend two or three times what smaller market teams can, competition is next to impossible. In this area, the union is at least as much to blame as anyone. Sports are unlike other businesses in that without viable competition, they can not function. Thus, conflict of interest and collusion among the owners is required for survival.
If you want to get on a social/sports bandwagon, join me in insisting that the Hall of Fame list all batting and pitching records that were accomplished before integration (1948) the same way they do with pre-1900 stats. After all, Josh Gibson hit more home runs than Ruth or Aaron and, if MLB doesn't choose to recognise his career numbers they can hardly recognise Ruth's. In the past 55 years, the best Black players have equaled and surpassed the best White players. Obviously, Blacks were always as compitant as Whites. MLB just pretended they weren't. A chance in the record books would be a more fitting memorial tribute to Jackie Robinson than a stamp.

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ?
From: Sam L
Date: 24 Jan 04 - 09:07 PM

I've never watched a ball game of any kind all the way through in my life, but still I can't help having an opinion. I think no.

   I'm sure many other players have done things morally worse, but I think the Baseball Hall of Fame isn't quite the same as the League Of Justice or the Gates of Heaven. They are about baseball and have a responsibility to uphold the game and respect it's rules. It's a baseball thing, and a big and fundamental one. Rose screwed himself. It's not as if there aren't a few other things to bet on. I feel so strongly about it, if he gets in I swear I'll never watch another pro baseball game!!!

It fascinates me the range of topics I tend to disagree with Guest Martin Gibson about--no offence meant. It's fun to read.

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 24 Jan 04 - 09:49 PM

Hi Musicmic,

You are correct, baseball is cheaper than the other sports, but not by much. The "cheap seats" are usually in the outfield bleachers or upper deck.   I have a season ticket plan for all the Saturday games for the NY Mets. Last year each ticket cost $31. I've had the same seats since 1983 when the cost was under $10. Granted prices increase over the years, but today it is a very expensive outing if you take a family to a ballgame. Between parking, hot dogs, tolls, and a scorecard, it costs me over $100 a game to take my son to a game.   When I was a kid it was easy for my father, who did not make that much, to take me to a half dozen games each year. Today, baseball is a once a year proposition for most families, if at all.   Luckily minor league baseball has become very popular with more reasonable prices, and in many cases better play.

You make a great point about the stats for Hall of Famers, but as far as I know there is no distinction for "pre-1900" stats in the record books. The Hall of Fame also has recognized and continues to recognize and publicize the accomplishments. Josh Gibson was elected to the Hall of Fame and his stats, including over 800 home runs, are mentioned on his plaque.   As for the record books, that is another issue. The Hall of Fame does not keep the records, they only honor the accomplishments, and they have made many steps to remember the stars of the Negro Leagues as well as educate the public to the game they played.

The one problem with the stats from the Negro Leagues were that they weren't always accurate. Their scores were kept in similar fashion to the minor leagues at the time, not everything was reported. They did not always play in major league ballparks either. I'm not saying that as a knock by any means. It was a sin that they were not allowed in the "majors" right from day 1. It would have been amazing to watch Josh Gibson and Babe Ruth battle for the HR title.

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ?
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jan 04 - 10:06 PM

Yes ... and Rapaire, where did you live, Covington?

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ?
From: Sam L
Date: 25 Jan 04 - 02:07 AM

Is there a difference between a contest and a game? With the money involved, are people "playing?" Games corrupt into contests. Pete Rose is certifiably corrupt, from the aesthetic point of view of baseball. It's not about gambling being a bad thing, of itself. A game is make-believe.

   I don't tend to like "virtuoso" music that much--often seems to get too caught up in a fantasy of it's own importance.

Drugs? Pro football will fuck you up whether you do drugs or not, it's proven to be pretty unhealthy in and of itself. Why do they care about drugs then? Because it's about football, not about Everything. Because of the idea of an unfair advantage, not because of health concerns. The whole point of a game is to pretend that it matters in the least what you do with a ball, and to forget the rest of the world, for a while. My 3 cents. I like to play, but have never been able to "root."

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ?
From: musicmick
Date: 25 Jan 04 - 02:12 AM

Ron, I had no idea that you were a Mets fan. You have my sincere condolence. How did they get so bad with all that money to spend?
Statistics in the Encyclopedia of Baseball separate baseball into two eras. The dividing line seems to be 1903, when the American League formed and the World Series began. There were some rule changes around then, too. So, even though 19th century players like Wee Willie Keeler and Ole Hoss Radbourne are in the Hall of Fame, their records have the kind of asterisk that they hung on poor Roger Maris when he had the affrontry to break "THE RECORD". The argument about accurate record keeping and field conditions in the Negro Leagues is, and was, bogus. It was just a way to justify segregation. I am not saying that all records from pre-1948 are meaningless. Well, yes I am.
Major League Baseball that excluded, at least, half of the best players is not very major. It may be true that Josh Gibson never had to face Walter Johnson but it is just as true that Babe Ruth didn't have to deal with Satchel Paige. The best thing to do is admit that players of both races played in watered down leagues and the only accurate and meaningful stats started when the best played against the best. Was Ruth a better hitter than Bonds? Was Cool Papa Bell faster than Henderson? Was Dizzy Dean's fastball swifter than Nolan Ryan's? We'll never know but we can know that Bonds, Henderson and Ryan compiled their numbers against the best players of their generation which is more than you can say for Ruth, Bell, Gibson, DiMaggio, and Hornsby. That goes for everyone from the segregated past. Let's recognize that real Major League Baseball started in 1948.
I wish you a better season at Shea.

                        Mike

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 25 Jan 04 - 01:59 PM

Mike, being a Mets fan is not about winning - it couldn't be or we would go crazy!! No condolences necessary, I'm still proud of my team's history. I'm just glad I wasn't born a Yankee's fan. I try to be open minded and liberal, but I just hate being in the same room as them. Sorry if that is your leaning!!!   :)

Seriously, you do make some very good points about dividing up the records before 1947 when Robinson broke the barrier. However, what year would you really start? African-American's made it into the league very slowly. The Yankees were one of the last teams to integrate, followed by the Red Sox. Even in the early 60's some teams were still lilly white.

I have an edition of the Encyclopedia that you mention from 1990. I do not see the players stats being broken down to pre-1903 records. I don't know if that has changed.

You can't dismiss the record keeping and ballparks of the Negro Leagues as being bogus without explaining why they aren't. The Negro Leagues did not maintain the same records as the Majors. The black press did a great job during the 1920's of reporting on the game, but during the depression their were cutbacks and games were not often reported. The Negro League rosters varied in size based on the economics of the team. They used a different baseball and the games were known for hitters. Shutouts were rare, no-hitters even rarer. The stadiums were different in some cases. There was a team in St.Louis that played with the left field foul poll estimated at 250 feet. Even I probably could hit a few out at that distance.

Again, I'm not diminishing the talent that existed. There were incredible stars. However, the encyclopedia that you mention does not include the Federal League stats, nor the Mexican Leagues in which many MLB players jumped to in the 40's.

It is impossible to right a wrong. Getting back to the original theme of this thread, the Hall of Fame has taken steps to recognize these players - such as the already mentioned Josh Gibson and recognition of his home runs.

One wrong we can keep right - that would be keeping Rose out of the Hall.

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ?
From: musicmick
Date: 25 Jan 04 - 05:35 PM

No Ron, I am not I Yankee fan. I haven't sunk that low. I was a fan of Connie Mack's A's until they left for Kansas City. Then, I switched my allegience to the Braves when they relocated to Wisconsin.
I have been following the hometown Phillies these last thity years or so, and I more than understand frustration. I am not suggesting that the records of the Negro League were as meticulously kept as MLB's. Frankly, it doesn't matter. White baseball and Black baseball were both diluted by segregation. By calling the records of White baseball "official", MLB insults all those great Black players, their teams and their leagues. Of course, we can't right any wrongs at this time but we can recognize the disparity by saying that the only official records should be post 1947 (or, as you correctly pointed out, even later when all the teams were integrated). It is not coincidental that the Dodgers, who had been a sorry lot throughout their history, dominated the National League for years because they signed great Black players like Robinson, Newcomb and Campanella. Their main competition was the Giants who grabbed Hank Thompson, Monte Irvin and Willie Mays. It took the rest of the league years to catch up.
Mo Vaughn? MO VAUGHN? What the hell were they thinking?

Subject: RE: BS: Pete Rose - Yes or No ?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 25 Jan 04 - 06:46 PM

Phillies huh, then I guess you don't follow professional baseball?   Just teasing, I actually like the Phillies, but I had to use that old joke. I am probably one of the few people on earth that enjoyed going to games at the Vet. I'm really looking forward to their new ballpark this year.

I agree with the principle behind your statements about the Negro League exclusion Mike, but I'm afraid I don't agree with adding the records into that of Major League Baseball or starting the records post 1947. As I said before, they would also need to add the Federal Leagues and the Mexican League as well, and they were all separate entities. Finding the true date when ALL of baseball was integrated is nearly impossible. At this point, the records are simply snapshots of the ballplayers who played in either the National League or the American League during it's history. The players who toiled in the Negro Leagues won't be forgotten any more than the white ballplayers of that era thanks to the work of dedicated fans, sportswriters and the Hall of Fame.

Please don't bring up Mo Vaughn or Roger Cedeno!!!!