Y'know, there's really no one out there who disputes Rose was a dynamic, compelling, very good (sometimes great) player. On any sensible list of "all time greats" he'd probably rank around #50, which is pretty darn good.
But he made a colossal, stupid decision, and made it repeatedly for a plurality of years -- to violate Major League rule 21, and wagered on games, including those involving his own team. He got caught and agreed to his standing punishment. And that's all of it. Some of us, many, think that the current state of affairs is how it should be, and nothing is going to change about it.
So when someone has to reach so deep in order to, I dunno, convince other people that Pete Really Was That Great, like never going on the DL -- well, yes, that's a real asset that Rose provided, but it doesn't make him a better player than we know he was. And when someone feels the need to reach THAT FAR for pro-Pete arguments, face it, the debate is lost.
I'd gladly argue about how great Rose was and where he deserves to rank, but any sorts of claims about "he's suffered enough" and deserves reinstatement are idiotic. His ineligible status is not based upon, nor refuted by, his playing career and how he performed.
Rose broke a rule -- a really, really important one -- and he cannot unbreak it. Hard cheese.
2007-04-25 04:09:44
·
answer #1
·
answered by Chipmaker Authentic 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
I could barely make out the question until I read the first response. Basically, like the guy said, Pete broke a rule he knew he shouldn't break, agreed to his punishment, and that's that. Pete at least got to play his whole career. Look at Joe Jackson, the man who Babe Ruth himself copied his swing off of because it was so perfect. Even leaving out debates about whether or not he knowingly accepted any money (most people seem to get their info on this from the movies, which shouldn't be taken for historical accuracy, but you can't dispute he played hard enough to remove doubt of whether he himself tried to throw the game), you still have a single, solitary offense. And at the time, this punishment was not even part of the rules (I don't even know if there was a formal rule against gambling tbh, but the punishment was devised by Landis to punish the Sox players). Joe was banned for life. The fact is, Pete is a liar and a cheat, and he knew what he was doing, and agreed to his ban. Did he drag out his career and surpass Cobb as the all time hit leader (Cobb, by the way, played a long career but was still hitting near as well as ever at the end of his career, and didn't need to drag it out to get where he did)? Yes. But the rules are the rules.
2007-04-25 05:17:46
·
answer #2
·
answered by Jimi L 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
ok, i recognize ties are lame, yet those men are in basic terms all so remarkable in cojmpletely different techniques, so the following is going: 3-way tie: Mark Knopfler: he's really remarkable in that he makes the guitar talk. He would not do as many gut splittin' licks or psychedelic runs as lots of the different greats, yet he performs with a large interest and feeling that comes via contained in the sound. Itmakes you end and pay interest. Eric Clapton: A classic. A god. He mixes blues and rock completely and he's ERIC CLAPTON!!! Jimi: A pioneer, continuously "breaking the mold", in case you'll forgive me for using that element period. Plus, come on, he performed mutually with his freaking teeth! And on hearth! also, Bruce Cockburn is freaking remarkable. inspect his instrumental stuff, he sounds like 3 different guitars all playing straight away!
2016-12-04 20:27:28
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋