Baseball HoF

The Coffee Shop
21

The PEDs users were wide spread, already in the hall, the commissioner of baseball at the time gets a pass and is in the hall, coaches in the hall, and now players in the hall. MLB knew what was going on and decided to make billions off of it and then throw players under the bus after the fact. Bonds is arguably the best to ever play the game and never had a positive test or violated MLB rules. He’s not in the hall because he was an asshole to these soft baseball writers.

Exactly.

He may have been a PED user (as you note - no positive test) but so were the pitchers he was hitting against (with positive tests).

He is also the only player with 500 HR 500 SB. No one is 400/400.

How about 40 HR and 40 SB in a season - 4 guys (he’s one of them)

PED’s are not known to make baseball players steal more bases.

Him not getting in really makes the baseball hall of fame a joke.

22

The other night on TV I noticed a commercial for one of the online sports betting sites, proudly proclaiming themselves to be the “official sports betting site of the NFL.” How ironic, the NFL has an official sports betting site and Pete Rose can’t get into the Hall of Fame, because gambling.

23

I almost feel bad for Charlie Hustle. He has spent the last 20+ years campaigning for it in some way shape or form.

Barry seems content to have moved on, gunning for the Strava Hall of Fame. That dude rides almost every day (to include Zwift) Clemens seems like he takes it in stride. Schilling…whatevs.

i think pete should get in before barry or arod. what pete did was bad, but it didn’t affect his production. he legitimately, fairly, got his 4,200 hits. not so barry. keep them all out. let them all in. whatever. but if you let barry in and keep pete out, bullspit.

Now that they’ve voted Ortiz in, it’s time for “let them all in” when it comes to the PED users. But they won’t do that either.

I agree with you. Either they’re all in or they’re all out. Don’t play favorites with “nice guys” like Ortiz over perceived assholes like Bonds and Clemens.

25

He bet on his team to win. Not good, but not like he bet on them to lose, then threw the game. I’m sure the bookies noticed when he placed bets, kind of like insider trading. Please correct me if I’m mistaken.

26

I almost feel bad for Charlie Hustle. He has spent the last 20+ years campaigning for it in some way shape or form.

Barry seems content to have moved on, gunning for the Strava Hall of Fame. That dude rides almost every day (to include Zwift) Clemens seems like he takes it in stride. Schilling…whatevs.

i think pete should get in before barry or arod. what pete did was bad, but it didn’t affect his production. he legitimately, fairly, got his 4,200 hits. not so barry. keep them all out. let them all in. whatever. but if you let barry in and keep pete out, bullspit.

I gotta fully disagree here. If you actually look into Pete Rose’s story, he deserves it much more than any PEDs user. First, gambling already had a well established rule and it was a huge no-no. Pete lied over and over and over about it, and we probably still don’t know the extent. He said he never bet, then he never bet on his team, then he only bet to win, etc. It is just a bunch of BS. Even if he is telling the whole truth now (I doubt it), even betting to win makes decisions as a manager the days you are not betting out of line. Maybe you hold back your closer this game because you have money on the next, etc. On top of that, Pete 100% agreed to a lifetime ban to avoid prosecution (MLB was going to hand over evidence to the feds). He agreed to it and now wants to back out. He should get in the second he dies, 100%

The PEDs users were wide spread, already in the hall, the commissioner of baseball at the time gets a pass and is in the hall, coaches in the hall, and now players in the hall. MLB knew what was going on and decided to make billions off of it and then throw players under the bus after the fact. Bonds is arguably the best to ever play the game and never had a positive test or violated MLB rules. He’s not in the hall because he was an asshole to these soft baseball writers.

i understand your view. and as i said, if you want to keep them all out, keep them out. but not one of pete’s hits, or stolen bases, was achieved unfairly. a lot of barry’s and arod’s homers were. the HOF is about performance, overwhelmingly, and the druggies juiced their performances. as for pete’s lying, liar’s lie. including all the dopers you want in the hall (except pettitte, and he might be lying as well). so, if lying excludes you from the hall, dopers out of the hall i’m sure you’ll agree.

and, “never had a positive test?” you’re really going to try that one?

Yes, I’m going to use that one for one reason, it’s all subjective. There are already PED users in the hall. I don’t think they should be out. I think it was part of the game and supported and ENCOURAGED by MLB. And funny how Ortiz gets a pass because he was nice. So does Bagwell and a few others already in the hall. Again, I’m NOT saying that they don’t deserve it, I’m saying they do, and so do the others that weren’t kissing the writers asses.

We can agree to disagree about Rose. I do 100% think his playing career is legendary and he is a huge part of the history of baseball and I hope to see him in someday. I just think that day is the day after he dies since he willing agreed to the ban.

27

As for Bonds, I say take his PED years and throw them out. Take away his HR records, they are BS.

Then after all that is done take a look at his career. He’s a HOF player even without the PED years.

Let him in.

Bingo!

28

i think pete should get in before barry or arod

I think Pete from the grocery store should get in before A-rod.

29

i think pete should get in before barry or arod

I think Pete from the grocery store should get in before A-rod.

Oh come on, his commentating isn’t that bad…

Oh wait, yes it is :wink:

30

Yes, I’m going to use that one for one reason, it’s all subjective. There are already PED users in the hall. I don’t think they should be out. I think it was part of the game and supported and ENCOURAGED by MLB. And funny how Ortiz gets a pass because he was nice. So does Bagwell and a few others already in the hall. Again, I’m NOT saying that they don’t deserve it, I’m saying they do, and so do the others that weren’t kissing the writers asses.

We can agree to disagree about Rose. I do 100% think his playing career is legendary and he is a huge part of the history of baseball and I hope to see him in someday. I just think that day is the day after he dies since he willing agreed to the ban.

I don’t have a view either way on MLB, but its worth noting that other sports the “nice/photogenic” PED users tend to get a pass while the jerks get the book thrown at them. Just look at Lance being stripped of his TdF titles, while Indurain, Riis, Ullrich, and Pantani have kept their titles.

Again, I don’t have an answer here for MLB (or even for cycling for that matter!), but it is worth noting that the PR is hugely responsible for how titles/HoF plays out in general, both with and without PEDs. It’s also worth noting that most (all?) of the records in terms of climbs are held by unrepentant dopers from the 90s.

31

He bet on his team to win. Not good, but not like he bet on them to lose, then threw the game. I’m sure the bookies noticed when he placed bets, kind of like insider trading. Please correct me if I’m mistaken.

So betting to win is also morally wrong. It effects the days you don’t and how you go about it from day to day. Also, Rose DID bet as a player. They have records that he bet on the Reds as a player/manager in 1986 at least 21 times.

32

Yes, I’m going to use that one for one reason, it’s all subjective. There are already PED users in the hall. I don’t think they should be out. I think it was part of the game and supported and ENCOURAGED by MLB. And funny how Ortiz gets a pass because he was nice. So does Bagwell and a few others already in the hall. Again, I’m NOT saying that they don’t deserve it, I’m saying they do, and so do the others that weren’t kissing the writers asses.

We can agree to disagree about Rose. I do 100% think his playing career is legendary and he is a huge part of the history of baseball and I hope to see him in someday. I just think that day is the day after he dies since he willing agreed to the ban.

I don’t have a view either way on MLB, but its worth noting that other sports the “nice/photogenic” PED users tend to get a pass while the jerks get the book thrown at them. Just look at Lance being stripped of his TdF titles, while Indurain, Riis, Ullrich, and Pantani have kept their titles.

Again, I don’t have an answer here for MLB (or even for cycling for that matter!), but it is worth noting that the PR is hugely responsible for how titles/HoF plays out in general, both with and without PEDs. It’s also worth noting that most (all?) of the records in terms of climbs are held by unrepentant dopers from the 90s.

Yup, you are right. MLB isn’t alone in it’s idiocy. The big difference I see between cycling and MLB’s PED issue in the 90s-00s is cycling was actively and harshly trying to deal with it and get peds out of the sport. MLB on the other hand didn’t put a rule on the books, drug their feet on testing, and didn’t do much until the government forced them to look into it.

33

He bet on his team to win. Not good, but not like he bet on them to lose, then threw the game. I’m sure the bookies noticed when he placed bets, kind of like insider trading. Please correct me if I’m mistaken.

So betting to win is also morally wrong. It effects the days you don’t and how you go about it from day to day. Also, Rose DID bet as a player. They have records that he bet on the Reds as a player/manager in 1986 at least 21 times.

i think there is a YUGE difference between betting on your team to win and betting your team will lose. his problem wasn’t that he was betting on baseball, it’s that he was a serial gambler. if you’re a serial womanizer, you serially cheat on your wife, you’re a serial drug (non-PED) drug user, a drunk, no prob. you tell your teammates you’re vaccinated when you’re not, no prob. you just don’t get vaccinated and you have to sit out half the team’s games, no prob.

this thing about rose’s gambling, it’s just what baseball decided is bad for baseball. all that other stuff is not - according to baseball - bad for baseball (or basketball, or football). it’s pretty arbitrary.

34

He bet on his team to win. Not good, but not like he bet on them to lose, then threw the game. I’m sure the bookies noticed when he placed bets, kind of like insider trading. Please correct me if I’m mistaken.

So betting to win is also morally wrong. It effects the days you don’t and how you go about it from day to day. Also, Rose DID bet as a player. They have records that he bet on the Reds as a player/manager in 1986 at least 21 times.

i think there is a YUGE difference between betting on your team to win and betting your team will lose. his problem wasn’t that he was betting on baseball, it’s that he was a serial gambler. if you’re a serial womanizer, you serially cheat on your wife, you’re a serial drug (non-PED) drug user, a drunk, no prob. you tell your teammates you’re vaccinated when you’re not, no prob. you just don’t get vaccinated and you have to sit out half the team’s games, no prob.

this thing about rose’s gambling, it’s just what baseball decided is bad for baseball. all that other stuff is not - according to baseball - bad for baseball (or basketball, or football). it’s pretty arbitrary.

I agree betting against is worse, but I don’t agree betting for is somehow okay. I agree, from everything out there Rose was and is a compulsive gambler and probably needs help. But I don’t think a ban on gambling in your sport is arbitrary. I’m pretty sure it’s like that with almost all sports (I’m not sure how it works in the fighting world).

If you want to see how gambling on your sport can cause major issues, even when you’re betting to win, watch the Netflix doc, Bad Sports. Specifically the episode on the ASU basketball team. Interesting stuff.

35

Yes, I’m going to use that one for one reason, it’s all subjective. There are already PED users in the hall. I don’t think they should be out. I think it was part of the game and supported and ENCOURAGED by MLB. And funny how Ortiz gets a pass because he was nice. So does Bagwell and a few others already in the hall. Again, I’m NOT saying that they don’t deserve it, I’m saying they do, and so do the others that weren’t kissing the writers asses.

We can agree to disagree about Rose. I do 100% think his playing career is legendary and he is a huge part of the history of baseball and I hope to see him in someday. I just think that day is the day after he dies since he willing agreed to the ban.

I don’t have a view either way on MLB, but its worth noting that other sports the “nice/photogenic” PED users tend to get a pass while the jerks get the book thrown at them. Just look at Lance being stripped of his TdF titles, while Indurain, Riis, Ullrich, and Pantani have kept their titles.

Again, I don’t have an answer here for MLB (or even for cycling for that matter!), but it is worth noting that the PR is hugely responsible for how titles/HoF plays out in general, both with and without PEDs. It’s also worth noting that most (all?) of the records in terms of climbs are held by unrepentant dopers from the 90s.

Yup, you are right. MLB isn’t alone in it’s idiocy. The big difference I see between cycling and MLB’s PED issue in the 90s-00s is cycling was actively and harshly trying to deal with it and get peds out of the sport. MLB on the other hand didn’t put a rule on the books, drug their feet on testing, and didn’t do much until the government forced them to look into it.

Cycling rode the Lance train of popularity as well. The UCI was actively working against USADA on the Lance file.

36

He bet on his team to win. Not good, but not like he bet on them to lose, then threw the game. I’m sure the bookies noticed when he placed bets, kind of like insider trading. Please correct me if I’m mistaken.

So betting to win is also morally wrong. It effects the days you don’t and how you go about it from day to day. Also, Rose DID bet as a player. They have records that he bet on the Reds as a player/manager in 1986 at least 21 times.

i think there is a YUGE difference between betting on your team to win and betting your team will lose. his problem wasn’t that he was betting on baseball, it’s that he was a serial gambler. if you’re a serial womanizer, you serially cheat on your wife, you’re a serial drug (non-PED) drug user, a drunk, no prob. you tell your teammates you’re vaccinated when you’re not, no prob. you just don’t get vaccinated and you have to sit out half the team’s games, no prob.

this thing about rose’s gambling, it’s just what baseball decided is bad for baseball. all that other stuff is not - according to baseball - bad for baseball (or basketball, or football). it’s pretty arbitrary.

I agree betting against is worse, but I don’t agree betting for is somehow okay. I agree, from everything out there Rose was and is a compulsive gambler and probably needs help. But I don’t think a ban on gambling in your sport is arbitrary. I’m pretty sure it’s like that with almost all sports (I’m not sure how it works in the fighting world).

If you want to see how gambling on your sport can cause major issues, even when you’re betting to win, watch the Netflix doc, Bad Sports. Specifically the episode on the ASU basketball team. Interesting stuff.

as long as we both agree that i never said that “betting for is somehow okay.” what i said is that there’s a difference between betting for or agin’, and that pro sports has its own very arbitrary, self-serving list of unforgiveable versus overlookable sins. i understand the ban on gambling on your own sport but, again, the real problem here isn’t gambling, it’s gambling on your team to lose. that messes with the integrity of the game, for sure. what kaaron did affected the actual integrity of the game, and nobody gave a spit about that. hence my view of the arbitrariness.

37

He bet on his team to win. Not good, but not like he bet on them to lose, then threw the game. I’m sure the bookies noticed when he placed bets, kind of like insider trading. Please correct me if I’m mistaken.

So betting to win is also morally wrong. It effects the days you don’t and how you go about it from day to day. Also, Rose DID bet as a player. They have records that he bet on the Reds as a player/manager in 1986 at least 21 times.

i think there is a YUGE difference between betting on your team to win and betting your team will lose. his problem wasn’t that he was betting on baseball, it’s that he was a serial gambler. if you’re a serial womanizer, you serially cheat on your wife, you’re a serial drug (non-PED) drug user, a drunk, no prob. you tell your teammates you’re vaccinated when you’re not, no prob. you just don’t get vaccinated and you have to sit out half the team’s games, no prob.

this thing about rose’s gambling, it’s just what baseball decided is bad for baseball. all that other stuff is not - according to baseball - bad for baseball (or basketball, or football). it’s pretty arbitrary.

I agree betting against is worse, but I don’t agree betting for is somehow okay. I agree, from everything out there Rose was and is a compulsive gambler and probably needs help. But I don’t think a ban on gambling in your sport is arbitrary. I’m pretty sure it’s like that with almost all sports (I’m not sure how it works in the fighting world).

If you want to see how gambling on your sport can cause major issues, even when you’re betting to win, watch the Netflix doc, Bad Sports. Specifically the episode on the ASU basketball team. Interesting stuff.

as long as we both agree that i never said that “betting for is somehow okay.” what i said is that there’s a difference between betting for or agin’, and that pro sports has its own very arbitrary, self-serving list of unforgiveable versus overlookable sins. i understand the ban on gambling on your own sport but, again, the real problem here isn’t gambling, it’s gambling on your team to lose. that messes with the integrity of the game, for sure. what kaaron did affected the actual integrity of the game, and nobody gave a spit about that. hence my view of the arbitrariness.

I can agree to that, sorry if I made it sound like I put words in your mouth.

I agree that betting to lose is much much worse and the main reason the problem exists. Rose was a hell of a player and a pretty shitty person. But the hall, and I would assume all sports halls have shitty people in them too.

38

He bet on his team to win. Not good, but not like he bet on them to lose, then threw the game. I’m sure the bookies noticed when he placed bets, kind of like insider trading. Please correct me if I’m mistaken.

So betting to win is also morally wrong. It effects the days you don’t and how you go about it from day to day. Also, Rose DID bet as a player. They have records that he bet on the Reds as a player/manager in 1986 at least 21 times.

i think there is a YUGE difference between betting on your team to win and betting your team will lose. his problem wasn’t that he was betting on baseball, it’s that he was a serial gambler. if you’re a serial womanizer, you serially cheat on your wife, you’re a serial drug (non-PED) drug user, a drunk, no prob. you tell your teammates you’re vaccinated when you’re not, no prob. you just don’t get vaccinated and you have to sit out half the team’s games, no prob.

this thing about rose’s gambling, it’s just what baseball decided is bad for baseball. all that other stuff is not - according to baseball - bad for baseball (or basketball, or football). it’s pretty arbitrary.

I agree betting against is worse, but I don’t agree betting for is somehow okay. I agree, from everything out there Rose was and is a compulsive gambler and probably needs help. But I don’t think a ban on gambling in your sport is arbitrary. I’m pretty sure it’s like that with almost all sports (I’m not sure how it works in the fighting world).

If you want to see how gambling on your sport can cause major issues, even when you’re betting to win, watch the Netflix doc, Bad Sports. Specifically the episode on the ASU basketball team. Interesting stuff.

as long as we both agree that i never said that “betting for is somehow okay.” what i said is that there’s a difference between betting for or agin’, and that pro sports has its own very arbitrary, self-serving list of unforgiveable versus overlookable sins. i understand the ban on gambling on your own sport but, again, the real problem here isn’t gambling, it’s gambling on your team to lose. that messes with the integrity of the game, for sure. what kaaron did affected the actual integrity of the game, and nobody gave a spit about that. hence my view of the arbitrariness.

I can agree to that, sorry if I made it sound like I put words in your mouth.

I agree that betting to lose is much much worse and the main reason the problem exists. Rose was a hell of a player and a pretty shitty person. But the hall, and I would assume all sports halls have shitty people in them too.

just to be clear, i don’t think these are easy calls. i am persuadable to different points of view. there may be some color to this - to the rose case for example - that would persuade me to view this differently. and as a person, pete rose is no lou gehrig.

39

I almost feel bad for Charlie Hustle. He has spent the last 20+ years campaigning for it in some way shape or form.

Barry seems content to have moved on, gunning for the Strava Hall of Fame. That dude rides almost every day (to include Zwift) Clemens seems like he takes it in stride. Schilling…whatevs.

I had no idea the cycling community was so much more friendlier towards former PED users. I wonder if Lance would be accepted by the baseball community if he decided to take up Slow Pitch.

Jokes aside, Clemens in my opinion was dominant without the PEDs. I think they helped him recover and prolong his career, but I would argue that he never had a clear advantage over hitters. His 2004 and 2005 numbers stand out as he was in his early 40s and still dominating, but one can argue that its not unusual for pitchers to dominate later in their careers (Nolan Ryan, Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux, and a handful of others). Hitters can gain a much greater advantage IMHO.

40

Nolan Ryan, Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux, and a handful of others).

Those three all pitched in the “open steroid era” Not saying they used steroids. Maybe they didn’t. But they’re from that era.

I’d argue that Greg Maddux was not dominant in the last ~ 1/4 of his career. His ERA was around ~4 from 2003-2008. So maybe he was steroid-free. :slight_smile: I like to think so being a fan.

I remember Rick Reuschel lasted pretty long, arguably a little before the big steroid era.

41

I almost feel bad for Charlie Hustle. He has spent the last 20+ years campaigning for it in some way shape or form.

Barry seems content to have moved on, gunning for the Strava Hall of Fame. That dude rides almost every day (to include Zwift) Clemens seems like he takes it in stride. Schilling…whatevs.

i think pete should get in before barry or arod. what pete did was bad, but it didn’t affect his production. he legitimately, fairly, got his 4,200 hits. not so barry. keep them all out. let them all in. whatever. but if you let barry in and keep pete out, bullspit.

Shoeless Joe Jackson is ahead of Pete Rose